Full text of "Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research."

See other formats

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2015

https://archive.org/details/proceedingsofsoc44soci

Ai .

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Society for Psychical Research

VOLUME XLIV

(CONTAINING PARTS I44-I5I)

1936-1937

The responsibility for both the facts and the reasonings in papers
published in the Proceedings rests entirely with their authors

THE SOCIETY FOR PSYCHICAL RESEARCH,
31 Tavistock Sqdaee, London, W.C. 1.

Agents for America: THE P. W. FAXON CO.,
83 Francis Street, Boston, Mass.

PRINTED

GREAT BRITAIN BY ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO. LTD.
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, GLASGOW

Vi. t

CONTENTS

PART 144.

PAGE

In Memory of Charles Eichet. By Oliver Lodge - . . 1

In Memory of Everard Feilding. By E. N. Bennett - - 5

Individuality. By G. N. M. Tyrrell 7

Review : Nea Walker, Through a Stranger's Hands. By Gerald

Heard 13

PART 145.

Preliminary Studies of the Recorded Leonard Material. By

IvENNETH Richmond 17

I. Notes on the Psychological Formation of Leonard

Communicators 17

II. An Example of Evidence of Intention in Book-Test

Material. (The “ La Vita Nuova ” Case) - - - 35

PART 146.

Mrs Henry Sidgwick’s Work in Psychical Research. By Alice

Johnson 53

Supplement.

I. By W. H. Salter 94

II. By Th. Besterman 96

PART 147.

Further Research in Extra-Sensory Perception. By G. N. M.

Tyrrell 99

PART 148.

Some Observations on Extra-Sensory Perception. By J. Cecil

Maby 169

Some Comments on Mr Tyrrell’s Paper on Individuality. By

H. F. Saltmarsh - - ^ j , . ... 1S3

Contents

PART 149. PAGE

The Quantitative Study of Trance Personalities — III. By
Whately Carlngton.

Introductory 189

Part I. Preleminary Survey of Material - - - - 191

Part II. Elimination of Effects due to Mediums from J, J'

AND E, E' Data 202

Summary and Conclusions 221

PART 150.

Review of Mr Whately Carington’s Work on Trance Per-
sonalities. By Robert H. Thouless.

I. Introduction 223

II. Problems and Methods 224

III. The Course of the Investigation — Recantations and

Conclusions 227

IV. The Measure of “ Similarity ” 230

V. The Measurement of “ Difference ” by Analysis of

Variance 234

VI. Tests of Significance 245

VII. The Measurement of Individuality or Self-Consistency 250

VIII. Countersimilarity of Controls 255

IX. Intermedium Work 263

X. Conclusions 274

Note. By Whately Carington 276

PART 151.

Supernormal Faculty and the Structure of the Mind. By C. A.

Mace 279

APPENDIX TO PART 151.

Officers and Council for 1937 303

List of Members and Associates 304

Index to Vol. XLIV 323

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Society for Psychical Research

PART 144

IN MEMORY OF CHARLES RICHET
By Oliver Lodge

On December 3 last there died a great savant, recognised as a
physiologist all over the world, and yet keenly interested in our
researches. This was an extraordinary combination, and speaks well
for the comprehensive character of Professor Richet’s activities. For
observe that a physiologist is wholly concerned with the material
mechanism of the body, with its secretions, the effect of drugs upon
it, with its nervous reactions, and with the working of its different
organs. No explanation of its behaviour except in terms of this pro-
cedure can be contemplated or even tolerated. Professor Richet is
speaking quite orthodox language when he says : “I cannot believe
that memory can exist without the anatomical and physiological
integrity of the brain. Whenever there is no more oxygen, whenever
the temperature is either too low or too high, when there are a few
drops of atropine or morphine or chloroform introduced into the
blood, whenever the course of cerebral irrigation is stopped — memory
alters and disappears.”

Sooner than contemplate an explanation in psychic terms. Pro-
fessor Richet, speaking for all or practically all physiologists, would
prefer to have no hypothesis at all, and simply say that many of the
facts which we adduce in support of our views are merely evidence of
what he calls “ cryptaesthesia,” which “ can reveal to us fragments of
the real — fragments which seem to have no connexion with space and
time.”

And further on he says : “ When I speak of cryptaesthesia I indi-
cate a fact — the perception of reality by extra-sensorial channels. I
do not seek to go beyond that, and as yet science has no right to go
beyond that.”

Oliver Lodge

[part

Nevertheless he admits some extraordinary phenomena, extra-
ordinary facts, he says, that is to say Precognitions ; “ I by no means
deny the reality of certain premonitions ; I have quoted remarkable
examples of them which have happened to me personally : and in the
annals of our science there are astonishing examples. ... It is an
undeniable fact ; and it proves to us the sheer impossibility, as yet,
of finding any explanation for metapsychic phenomena.”

The quotations are from Vol. XXXIV of Proceedings, from a short
paper by Professor Richet against the possibility of survival, wherein
he maintains “ that the most reasonable hypothesis is the unknown
hypothesis X, which it will be for the future to develop”.

For a review of Professor Richet’s beliefs I wish to cite this whole
volume as giving incidentally evidence both for and against survival.
In it I review his great “ Traite de Metapsychique ”, which he hoped
would be used some day by any University course upon the subject ;
and I concluded by a somewhat playful sequel as to the points on
which we differed.

He has now presumably entered on that future existence estab-
lished by our own investigations, and disbelieved in by him : and he
will perhaps try to communicate sooner or later, and will find himself
up against those difficulties of establishing his identity which I there
summarise. (See vol. xxxiv. pages 100 to 104.)

Richet not only admitted the truth of what he called “ subjective
metapsychics ” including the incomprehensible character of precog-
nitions, he was ready to admit some of the phenomena of objective
metapsychics, and thoroughly accepted those which are commonly
explained in terms of ectoplasm, including telekinesis and material-
isations, always however assuming that a materiahsation did not
represent anything surviving but must be taken as representation of
something which has existed but which no longer exists ; for example,
a construction of the body or parts of the body of a deceased person.
He C|uite perceived that this is wholly contrary to the scientific know-
ledge of the time. He says that to admit it is to enter a world
absolutely unknown, and if some day we have to admit it we shall be
plunged into an abyss of deeper and deeper mysteries. At present in
his opinion “ we have understood nothing, absolutely nothing, of all
these phenomena ”. And in that ignorance he is content to remain,
though he accepts the evidence for both the subjective and objective
metapsychics, as bare facts ; that is to say for the psychical as well
as the physical phenomena.

In accepting the facts without any explanation he shows a remark-
able openness of mind superior to that of most of his colleagues.
Yet in refusing to contemplate a spiritistic hypothesis and retaining

144]

In Memory of Charles Richet

the agnostic position he puts himself in harmony with them and with
orthodox science as at present imderstood. There is no doubt that
the views of orthodox science will some day have to change. It will
have to admit that it has been wholly wrong in limiting its attention
to the material aspect of things, and as soon as the spiritual is gener-
ally accepted it will have revolutionised its procedure, and entered
on a path to which we can affix no limits and of which it is not easy
to forecast the end.

And now a few words concerning Richet the man. He was a
specially accomphshed man of science, and an orator whom it was a
privilege to hear ; he was a brilliant conversationahst as well as a
renowned physiologist, and one who did not scruple to pursue truth
into regions which his colleagues, and indeed he himself, regarded as
unpopular and absurd. As a man of letters and an appreciator of
good literature, he could hold his own, and many were the verses
stored in his memory which he could pour forth at any opportunity.

Through F. W. H. Myers I made his acquaintance, and I had many
opportunities of meeting him in the ’eighties and ’nineties of last
century, when he came over to pay a visit to his great friends, Myers
and his wife, at Leckhampton House, Cambridge. So it happened
that when Richet invited Myers to come and pay him a visit at the
He Riband, in the Mediterranean, off Hyffies, one summer in
August when he was entertaining the physical medium, Eusapia
Palladino, I was included in the invitation and travelled to the South
of France in the company of Myers. There I had my first opportunity
of seeing some of the physical phenomena of Spiritualism, well dis-
played under exceptionally good circumstances. The main room of
the house on the island was converted into a seance room and kept
for the purpose. There we sat each evening for a couple of hours, and
the phenomena occurred just as if some confederate had been intro-
duced into the room and was free to walk about, clutch at the people
present, and move things ; but no confederate was present or was
possible under the circumstances, and I became gradually convinced
that certain phenomena had occurred, of which I have given some
account in the book Past Years, as part of my autobiography. My
record was sent home, and was ultimately printed in the Journal of
the S.P.R., vol. vi, pp. 306-360.

During the day, and at meals, I had the opportunity of hearing a
torrent of brilfiant conversation between Myers and Richet, Myers
thoroughly convinced of survival, and Richet, as is well known, not
accepting that view, even as explanatory of the mental phenomena.
To the end, Richet in public remained an agnostic and a disbeliever

Oliver Lodge

[part 144

in the spiritual explanation. In private, he has confessed to me that
he was sometimes nearly bowled over by the evidence ; but, on the
whole, he adhered to his lifelong conviction of the materialistic aspect
of the universe. His scientific reputation was thereby saved, and his
experience was all the more valuable because it testified only to the
bare facts, which, although admittedly incredible from the scientific
point of view, were not employed to bolster up any spiritualistic
hypothesis. On those terms we agreed to differ, and yet remained
close friends. He lost a favourite son in the war, but held no com-
munication with him, though at times sorely tempted to do so.

In telling me of his latest book in July 1932 he wrote :

“ IlE RiBAUD — GtIENS

Par Hyeres (Var).

Mon CHER Oliver,

Merci de votre lettre. Bien entendu tout ce qui touche le
S.P.R. me va au cmur.

Je vais publier un hvre intitule La Grande Esperance. Et, sans
etre resolument spirite dans le sens de Conan Doyle et Allan Kardec,
je me rapproche insensiblement de vos idees. Vous dirai-je — ce qui
est rigoureusement vrai — que votre profonde et scientifique convic-
tion a eu grande influence, tres grande influence.

Toutes mes amities fideles a vous et a vos chers enfants.

Charles Richet.”

This is an indication and a justiflcation of what I mean when I say
that he felt drawn towards the hypothesis of survival more than he
permitted himself to express in face of his life-long study of physio-
logy and the material view of the nature of man.

In his physiology he studied chiefly the ordinary processes of
nutrition in health and disease: he was joint discoverer of the serum
treatment; and he received a Nobel prize for his investigation of the
detailed effect of drugs which is known as “ anaphylaxis ”. At a
time when the great physiologist Sir Michael Foster was President of
the British Association at Dover, Richet was invited to come over to
give one of the two evening discourses in French ; and brilliantly he
did it, keeping his whole audience spellbound by the beauty of the
language and its delivery.

Assisted by Madame Richet, he lived a complete family life ;
it was very interesting to drop in on a Sunday afternoon and find him
surrounded by a large family, sons and daughters-in-law. As to
myself I can truly say that his attitude to me was like that of a
brother.

IN MEMORY OF EVERARD FEILDING
By E. N. Beknett

I FIRST met Everard Feilding in Oxford nearly 40 years ago, when
I was in residence as a Fellow of Hertford. He was at that time
deeply interested in the movement to encourage young Cathohcs to
enter the University and in this connexion visited the city from
time to time. On these occasions he frequently dined with me, and
his bright and interesting conversation made him always a welcome
visitor to our Senior Common Room.

A year or two before, I had, through conversations with Frederic
Myers, become deeply interested in the work of the Psychical Re-
search Society, and Everard and I found ourselves on common
ground from the start. He was always ready and willing to share in
any investigations and in addition to various visits to alleged
“ haunted houses ” (including Brockley Court) we held sittings with
Mrs Corner, (nee Florence Cook) and a number of physical mediums.
These special researches of ours were full of interest and on one or
two occasions produced phenomena which we found it difficult to
explain ; but in general they proved futile or, at best, inconclusive.
Feilding had, however, like myself, been taught by Myers’ example
and precept that it was worth while to explore any really well
attested phenomena on the off chance of finding some grains of gold
among the dross.

There ran indeed throughout the whole of Feilding’s work in
Psychical Research a note of cheerful optimism, so characteristic of
his free and forceful personality. Whenever I shared in his vigils in
haunted houses, or sat with him to test the alleged phenomena of
a materiahsation seance, the tedium and generally disappointing
results of such experiences were almost forgotten in such company as
his. He was always ready to disregard the waste of time and money,
to laugh at the exposure of trickery, and to suggest by way of con-
solation that after all we had gained some further knowledge of
mediumistic psychology. Some critics might suggest, perhaps, that
this characteristic of Feilding’s indicated a rather frivolous approach
to a serious subject but I feel on reflection, that such an attitude may
really in the case of certain types of mind act as a saving grace. On
one occasion in excusing himself from approaching the investigation
of EusapiaPalladino’s phenomena “ in alight— shall I sayeven flippant

E. W. Bennett

[part 144

spirit,” lie added, “ I sometimes think that in this way alone one can
preserve one’s mental balance in dealing with this kind of subject.”
Nevertheless, under this superficial impression of occasional flip-
pancy, Feilding concealed a very deep and serious enthusiasm. In
1908 he took a leading part in the Palladino experiments at Naples
and produced a report in common with Messrs Carrington and Bag-
gally of profound interest and value. He became convinced at some
of the Eusapia sittings of “ the reality of the phenomena and the exist-
ence of some force not generally recognised, which was able to
impress itself upon, or create the appearance of matter.”

Everard shared to the full that absorbing motive which inspired
the life work of Frederic Myers — an ardent desire to secure a scien-
tific proof of man’s survival after death. In an admirable paper con-
tributed to the Dublin Eeview in 1925, he summed up the case as
follows : “ It is only by the patient accumulation of facts, disregard-
ing sources of error which experience gradually indicates, that ulti-
mately a probability can be built up which in the end becomes so
probable as to exclude any other reasonable conclusion.” He sat
next to me at our Jubilee Dinner and told me how deeply he felt the
importance of Mrs Sidgwick’s wonderful message.

On one occasion I managed to get Everard to go with me to a
remote island in the Lofoden Group which I leased for sport. He
shot and fished more, I think, to please me than himself, and on one
occasion when some fish had been pilfered from our boat, Feilding
joined some farmers at a seance to discover the culprit’s name. Dur-
ing this visit I realised once more Feilding’s extraordinary gift for
languages. Within ten days he had learnt enough Norwegian to talk
to the islanders with some facility, and what is more, to understand a
good deal of their Lofoden patois. Feilding loved his sojourn in this
delectable island, and after our long hours in the open we sat in my
wooden house beside the peat fires talking of many things.

ifjLvqodrjv S’ ooaaKLs dixcjiOTe poi
'pXiov iv Aeuyp KocTeSvaccjjiev

but always returning sooner or later to our great mutual interest.
Psychical Research.

When I last saw my old friend, exactly a fortnight before his death,
his nund seemed as cheerful and as vigorous as ever. He died amid
the love and esteem of all who knew him, without an enemy in the
world — I know no better record for any man or woman.

Quis desiderio sit pudor aut modus
Tam cari capitis ?

(16th March, 1936.)

INDIVIDUALITY
By G. N. M. Tyrrell

Mr Whately Carington’s able work, in carrying the quantitative
method of research into the investigation of trance-personalities,
raises a very fundamental question, viz., “ What do we mean by in-
dividuality ? ” Do word-associations, reaction-times or psycho-
galvanic reflexes characterise that in the personality which is essen-
tially the “ I ” ? Or do they characterise those subconscious levels
of the self, which in psychical research we call the “ Subliminal ” ?
Or do they characterise only the physiological and nervous mech-
anism of the organism ? Or do they characterise a synthetic unit,
which comprises all three of these ?

In my ignorance of the technique of this method of research as
used in normal psychology, I am assuming that they are supposed
to characterise the latter ; that is to say, what in common language
we call the “ person.” How definitely and consistently does a set of
reaction-times characterise such a person ? Here, again, I do not
know : but the Gatty experiment would seem to indicate that it
cannot characterise such a total, synthetic personality with anything
hke the same definiteness with which the thumb-print characterises
the body ; for reaction-times can be changed by a mere act of
volition.

That is one point. Another is that, assuming survival of death,
there must, at death, be some disintegration or at least re-synthesis
of the elements of the personal complex. Somewhere this complex
must be severed and its surviving elements presumably readjusted.
To our bodily senses it appears that the physical part only is sundered
from the rest and left behind ; but we do not know how much more
may be happening, which our senses tell us nothing about. We do
not know, for instance, how much of what we call the “ Subliminal ”
or the “ Unconscious ” may enter into a new combination and survive
with the ego : or whether only the individual self or pure ego sur-
vives. It may be that much of the self below the threshold of con-
sciousness survives, with its habits, dispositions and complexes, as
Spirituahsts seem to believe. Or it may be that none of it, or but
httle, does. On the answers to these questions depends the signifi-
cance we must attach to reaction-time tests and similar quantitative

G. N. M. Tyrrell

[part

experiments. I do not mean to say that the validity of Mr Caring-
ton’s work depends on the answers to these questions. He has
merely found out what significant differences in reaction- times, etc.
exist ; and this we need to know in any case. But, when it comes to
interpreting these differences, we must be profoundly influenced by
the ideas we hold on the nature of personality and individuality.
Hence an intensive discussion of this subject seems very desirable ;
and I should like to see it undertaken by those who are more com-
petent to do it than myself.

What is Individuality or the “ I-ness ” of the self ; and on what
does it depend ? First of all, has our individuality anything to do
with the fact that we five in independent bodies, which are spatially
separated from one another ? Common sense (which has an amazing
power of persuading us that a thing is as clear as daylight when it is
really as obscure as night) certainly suggests to us that people are
individuals, at least partly, because they are spatial units and five in
spatially separated bodies. In fact, it goes further, and bestows a
kind of pseudo-individuahty on inanimate objects themselves,
simply because they are spatially separated from one another. A
chair, for instance, we usually sj^eak of as being the possessor of such
and such qualities and characteristics, thereby according it that kind
of individuality which constitutes it a possessing subject ; whereas a
block of water ideally outlined in the sea is just “ stuff.” The
sequence of ideas seems to be ; (1) We are conscious individuals.
(2) We live in separate bodies. (3) We should not be individuals if
we were not separated from one another. (4) Chairs, stones, etc. are
visibly separated from one another. (5) Therefore they must possess
some sort of individuality.

But, why should we regard inorganic objects as separate subjects
at all ? We are surrounded by a continuous, though not homo-
geneous, environment of matter ; and the surfaces of things, which
mark them off from one another to the senses, are merely sense-
indications of a qualitative difference in the substance of this con-
tinuum. Why is the inorganic universe to be regarded as a many
rather than as a one % It is difficult to see any reason, except that of
practical convenience, why we should not S|)eak of it as one subject-
possessor of many quahties ? Spatial separateness alone cannot
confer any sort of individuality.

But, if that be granted, may we not maintain that the conscious
individuality of human beings depends, not on spatial separateness,
but on separateness of another kind ? May we not say that it
depends on a numerical separateness arising out of the fact that the
thoughts, mental content and, in general, all the experiences belong-

144]

Individuality

ing to each individual are private to that individual and inaccessible
to any other ; and that this constitutes a conscious being a numerical
unit and hence an individual ?

It is at this point that the work of psychical research looks as if it
might have something to say on the subject. At first sight, tele-
pathy seems to challenge this alleged privacy of individual experience
by making it seem probable that an experience of the agent’s is
actually shared by the percipient. But Dr Broad, who has dealt with
this interesting question in his Presidential Address, has shown that
it is possible to explain telepathy without having recourse to any
breach of what he refers to as the principle of “ Unique Ownership of
Experiences.” There might be a process of Interaction between the
agent and the percipient, which induced in the latter an experience
similar to, but not identical with, that of the agent. In this way the
percipient would not actually share or directly enjoy the identical
experience which the agent enjoyed. He would have an experience
of his own, similar to the agent’s, but yet remaining his unique and
private possession ; while the agent’s experience would be similarly
private to, and uniquely owned by, himself. In the present state of
our ignorance of the modus ojjerandi of telepathy, we have no way of
deciding this point experimentally.

There is a sort of half-way house in the matter, which Dr Broad
also explains in his Address. It is possible, in some cases, that what
appears at first sight to be the direct prehension by two minds of the
same experience may be in reality the direct prehension by two minds
of the same immediate object of experience. But I find it difficult to
see how this explanation can be applied to cases in which the tele-
pathic experience of the percipient is that of feeling within himself
the whole mood and emotional tone of the agent, such as frequently
occurs in practice.

But, when we come to cases of dual or multiple personality (not to
mention the problems raised in trance-communications) the question
of whether there is or is not a breach of the principle of the Unique
Ownership of Experiences presents itself in a more acute form.
Suppose, in a case of dual personality, that A is a secondary person-
ality, co-conscious with the primary personahty B, but remaining in
the background. A gives evidence of knowing B’s thoughts and of
sharing B’s experiences. Can we plausibly explain the relation be-
tween A and B on the theory of Interactional Telepathy ? We
have here two individualities, and on the theory we are considering,
the individuahty of each depends on the numerical separateness of
its content of experience. There cannot, on this theory, be such a
thing as an experience which is common to two minds. Well, here

G. N. M. Tyrrell

[part

again, our ignorance prevents us from dogmatising ; all we can say
is that it looks uncommonly as if there were a sharing of experience.
And what has the interactional theory to say about the cure of such
a case, when the two individualities seem to become one ? Can this
happen without involving the process which Dr Broad calls “ Inter-
mental Confluence ” ?

Assuming for the sake of argument that intermental confluence
can take place, in what way would it influence our ideas of indivi-
duality ? Take A and B, two individuals, at first numerically
separated from one another by the privacy of their experiences, but
afterwards (perhaps in a disembodied state) sharing all their experi-
ences in common : so that each directly shares all the experiences of
the other as well as his own. What effect will this abolition of the
unique privacy of the experience of each have on the individualities
of A and B ? Will the fact that all the experience of one is identified
with all the experience of the other result in the obhteration of either
or both as individualities, by removing any criterion for distin-
guishing A from B ? It may be said that there is now no means of
identifying two centres of consciousness, and therefore that A has
been annihilated and only B remains ; or else vice versa. Or, it may
be said, that both A and B have been annihilated and that a third
individuality C, enjoying all the experiences of both, has taken their
place. In general, this view would seem to indicate that if n indi-
vidualities share all their experiences in common, this must result in
the extinction of at least n- \ of them.

These suggestions strike me as being quite unplausible and absurd.
If A’s experience is enriched by the addition of B’s, it seems mon-
strous to assert that this will have the effect of annihilating A.

Another suggestion which might be made is that, with the pooling
of the experiences of a number of individuals, all the individualities
concerned will disappear, merging into a kind of vaguely conceived
“ psychic continuum.” But, this is surely going from bad to worse.
It has the air of capitulation before a difficulty. This is a reversion
to a purely mechanical mode of thought. The mind, brought up on
the data of its senses, oscillates between the two conceptions of
atomic plurality on the one hand and a continuum on the other.
But both these ideas seem ultimately to be derived from the experi-
ence or conception of space, the idea of atomism being derived from
the mutually exclusive aspect of space and the idea of a continuum
from its prehensive aspect.

What all this points to, surely, is that we are on the wrong track
in assuming that numerical separateness hes at the root of indivi-
duality. As a theory it leads to conclusions which do not square with

144]

Individuality

the experience of being an individual. If we suppose that indivi-
duality does not depend on numerical separateness, we might define
it as just the irreducible character of conscious being, without at-
tempting to define the latter further. Why should not consciousness
be as irreducible a characteristic of one kind, or phase, of being as
extendedness is of another ? Then the sharing of experience by two
individualities, originally numerically separate, although it removes
the ground for drawing a numerical distinction between them, does
not impair their qualitative individuality or the “ I-ness ” of their
consciousness. It would seem that we must be wrong in speaking of
individuality in the plural ; and equally wrong in spealing of it in the
singular. Individuality would be something not subject to the cate-
gory of number. It is true that one cannot form any intellectual
conception of such a thing ; but why should one exjrect to be able
to ? Why should we assume that nature will obligingly fit into the
conceptual framework which she has provided for us for purposes
quite other than the attainment of ultimate truth 1 It may be that
on these lines we shall best make a beginning in the realisation that
the universe is not ultimately pluralistic.

The numerical, as well as spatial, separateness possessed by
embodied human beings, with which we are so famihar, would then
have to be regarded, not as constituting the basis of individuality,
but as having been bestowed on the total personality by its non-
conscious and less essential elements.

It is sometimes stated that individuahty is dependent on memory
— not on a complete and continuous chain of memory — but it is said
that, if a person were to lose his memory entirely, he would cease to
be the same individual. But here, again, we come up against diffi-
culties. This seems to be another attempt to base individuality on a
numerically separate possession. Suppose that an individual A, at a
particular moment in time, were to lose all memory of his experiences
up to that moment. On the view that individuality is dependent on
memory, A would cease to exist as an individual from this moment,
and would be replaced by a new individual B, who would inhabit the
body formerly occupied by A. B’s experiences and memories would
start from the moment in time when A’s ceased. But now, suppose
that, at a later moment, all the memories which A had lost returned
to B. (Partial returns of memory of this kind are not uncommon.)
B would now become A without ceasing to be B ; and this sounds to
me quite absurd. Changes in the self occur during sleejj and apparent
cessations of the self occur during periods of unconsciousness ; but
these do not in any way impair our belief in the identity of our
individuality. It is very hard to believe that individuality is

G. N. M. Tyrrell

[part 144

dependent on the continuity of memory. It is not even easy to
regard individuality as enduring in time or as being dependent on
temporal continuity. It may be that temporal endurance and
temporal change are less fundamental than the nature of indivi-
duality, being partly a mode of appearance, which arises out of a
relational nexus into which that very individuality enters as subject.
It may be that, when we think we are witnessing the fleeting and un-
stable nature of conscious individuality, we are in reality witnessing
the unstable synthesis of a personality composed of widely differing
and all but incompatible elements. It is always through such a per-
sonality that the individuality of others manifests itself to us ; and
it is always on such a personality that the nature of our own subjec-
tive experience depends.

If we are seeking a test for individuality, how do we know that
such tests as associations and reaction-times are valid for the pur-
pose ? For if these happen to characterise, as their use in ordinary
life imphes, not the individuality, but the synthetic personality,
(what we call in common life the “ person ”) it seems hkely enough
that an individuality manifesting in its own body in life would give
different reaction-times from those it would give in its natural state
after death, (if the test could then be applied) and different again
from those it would give if manifesting through a medium.

REVIEW

Through a Strangers Hmids. New Evidence of Survival, compiled by
Nea Walker. Foreword by Sir Oliver Lodge. Hutchinson,
pp. 432. 16s. net.

In a well-known theological work lately published on the future
life the authority gives a paragraph to psychical research. He has
studied the records, he informs his readers, and they may be assured
such are negligible. He makes the usual remark that all the material
is on the face of it of such a trivial nature that it may safely be
dismissed. Here we are faced with the common obstacle which
speciahsation has put in the path of science progress — few men in
one science know of the latest advance in another. When they
would review the whole front, outside their speciality, they fall back
on work which has been superseded. This latest compilation of Miss
Walker is an advance. Those who read The Bridge, whether they
were disconcerted or concerted by it, realised here was material
which would complicate our view of the universe and consciousness.
It is worth noting in passing that sometimes we forget, when we are
discounting (as we should) the will to beheve, that there is a comple-
mentary discount to be made against the will to disbelieve, a wdll
prompted by the strong wish to have a simple world to deal with, to
observe the Law of Parsimony. Mechanism is the simplest world
picture man has ever had. Hence a longing to preserve it. Against
The Bridge could then be brought (with reUef by the simplists : with
reservation of judgment by the rest) the fact that telepathic leakage
was certainly possible. No psychical researcher needs to be told that
telepathy can never be ruled out as a possible explanation of all
para-normal knowledge. The point at issue is at what point does the
telepathy become so complicated that (this time on the other side)
the Law of Parsimony turns up and Occam’s razor begins to cut in
the opposite direction. Miss Walker’s technique was simple but
effective in complicating the telepathic hypothesis. She received
about a specific dead person, personally unknown to her, only such few
distinctive facts as would permit her to recognise it was about them
the medium was speaking, should the medium refer to them at all.

These facts she wrote out in letter form, read out when she was by
herself, then posted the letter so read out, to Mrs Sidgwick to file as

Review

[part

evidence. After that she travelled to have a sitting with Mrs Leonard,
who of course knew nothing of the particular reason for this sitting.
Then, like a good naturalist. Miss Walker sat waiting for any reply.
The replies are here. Quite apart from the fact that this is a new
technique which makes the telepathic hypothesis much more com-
plicated and also confirms the bona fides of the whole procedure, the
material itself is probably as remarkable as any that has been avail-
able to public inspection. The three sittings at which information
purported to come from a doctor who committed suicide : the
sittings at which a child killed in the burning of the Georges Philippar
is claimed to be communicating : such records, quite apart from the
stringent conditions under which they were received, make it quite
impossible for such records to be dismissed, because on the face of it
they are trivial and lacking in character. What conclusions then are
possible 1

The first will, for most researchers, be telepathic. It will, however,
have to be owned that the old and popular idea of telepathy — one
mind transmitting directly to another — is shown by these records to be
as mistaken as the President’s address demonstrated it to be. When
there is given evidence which is neither known to sitter nor medium
and those possessed of it do not know the sitting is taking place and
may be far distant, the telepathic hypothesis becomes richly com-
plex. When to that richness is added the consistent character of the
communicator, often rejecting suggestions which are “ out of char-
acter ” and showing pecuharities of personality, we have, instead of
a simple skein of memories somehow hanging together and so hauled
up by medium and sitter, something much more exactly to be
described as an individual communicator. That naturally persuades
many investigators to adopt the second possible conclusion “ con-
ventional survival ”. On this side, however, we must put the con-
fusions, vaguenesses and inaccuracies. They exist as well as the
evidential material. They may be due to the medium’s mind con-
fusing transmission, on the other hand they may be due to no clear
personality being present. A third provisional conclusion is then
possible.

It grows increasingly probable that if consciousness survives the
body it must do so under conditions largely incommunicable to us
still incarnate. Further, when a mind which is so surviving would
make contact with us it would have to “ recondense ”, recondition
itself. Existing say in some state analagous to the diffused state
water can take on when it becomes steam, it would have to turn
itself back into the definiteness of a hailstone. Such an effort would
be difficult and the “ frozen ” state precarious for a droplet which

144]

Revieiv

lacked a normal condensation-point or nucleus. Certainly, reading
these records, there is the feeling of a focus sharpening and fading as
though it could only be retained for a few moments with any
distinctness.

All conclusions, however, are obviously premature. Two things
can be said : one is that Psychical Research is advancing, is enlarg-
ing our conception of what consciousness is : the other is that no one
should venture to talk about survival, pro or con, till this book has
been studied. Apart from all else Mr Richmond’s sparse classifica-
tory comments give these collections a peculiar value.

Gerald Heard.

MRS HENRY SIDGWICK

An Obituary of Mrs Henry Sidgwick by Miss Alice Johnson is in
preparation and will be published shortly in Proceedings.

31346?

»7

-y i V

■.. *

i' 'i'i

' •• V-' .^••^

•'■ 'V£iiu»

' - / *•

*f ' .

/f, ,

■ i

■*.. 1

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Society for Psychical Research

PART 145

PRELIMINARY STUDIES OF THE RECORDED LEONARD

MATERIAL

By Kenneth Richmond
I

Notes on the Psychological Formation of Leonard Communicators

In approaching the problem of communicator-personality as it
appears in Mrs Leonard’s recorded trance-material, I have adopted
certain fluid hyjiotheses which should be put down to start with.
First, I adopt, provisionally, a view which is supported in part by
Mr fVhately Carington’s quantitative investigations, that we are
dealing with two chief psychological mechanisms : one an organised
and habitual secondary personality, which is usually (I do not say
always) the vehicle for the Feda control ; and the other a dramatis-
ing function of the primary trance-mind, which adapts itself to
become the vehicle for the different communicators. In saying
“ vehicle ”, I free myself from any suspicion of thinking that
“ secondary personality ”, or “ dramatic pose ” (to adopt Mr
Carington’s useful phrase), can explain or characterise the impulses
that operate through these mechanisms.^

But these concepts can suggest an explanation, at once, for a
curiously dual and fluctuating technique of the trance-mind,
through which the impulse of communication for the most part
operates. Sometimes Feda seems to be speaking, sometimes the
communicator, sometimes you cannot be grammatically sure which,
though in the context the question is not often in doubt. But Feda
is regularly found speaking on behalf of the communicator. Why ?
Simply because the habitually organised mechanism works the

^ “ For every mental event the question must be raised as to the origin of
the efiective energies.” K. Lewin, Psychol. Forsch. 7, p. 313.

B 17

18 Kenneth Richmond : Preliminary Studies of [part

more easily ? I think that this is one reason, hut that there is
another. A secondary personahty appears — and the appearance is
confirmed by Mr Carington’s results — to have paths of association
open for use which in the primary personality are impeded by
systems of resistance and inhibition. (Mrs Leonard in the normal
waking state obviously would not run on as Feda does, and the
Feda mind seems in many ways to run along different tracks.)
The impulse of communication, wherever it comes from, thus has
two alternative systems of free association through which it can
operate, and the systems are “ countersimilar ”, to borrow Mr
Carington’s term : one is complementary to the other. An idea or
phrase that will not come to expression through one system, may be
switched over to the other set of tracks and so reach its destination.
I am taking it as a working hypothesis that this continually happens
in Leonard material. This is not to reject the possibility that a
fugitive and scrappy form of utterance may be part of a defence-
mechanism. It does, in poor sittings, provide a way of slipping out
of difficulties. But equally, in good sittings, it seems to provide a
way of slipping into a train of association that leads to an evidential
remark.

When a communicator appears to assume “ direct control ”, the
tendency of the thought-stream to be switched to and fro largely
disappears. The utterance may be scrappy in many instances, but
the scraps hang together in natural sequence. Impressions of
character and specific personality, which are recognised by the
sitter or subsequent verifier, become more frequent ; but on the
other hand, when evidential detail is attempted, “ forgetting ” and
other mental blank patches shown by the communicator become
more frequent also. I am not yet sure how this situation is affected
as the “ direct control ” improves in apparent quality, when it
becomes more strongly organised with time and practice ; but it
seems to me that the improvement consists more in steering round
the limitations of the vehicle than in removing them. The ease
with which evidence of paranormal faculty is produced seems to be
definitely and permanently decreased in the case of “ direct con-
trol ”, as though flexibility in switching on to the necessary associa-
tions of idea and phrase had partly disappeared. The hypothesis
seems to be of use that in this case one-half only of a two-way
system of association is operating, the “ dramatisation ” half,
equipped with those association-tracks only which are open to the
primary trance-^aersonality, while the secondary trance-personality,
the vehicle for Feda, is in abeyance.

This theory of a two-way system through which the impulse of

145]

the Recorded Leonard Material

communication can work may be of psychological interest, if
further examination of facts does not show it to be fallaciously
simple. It is a matter of common experience in psychology that
definite boundaries between this and that process turn out to mark
convenient divisions in the psychologist’s system of ideas, rather
than distinct areas in his field of observation. But Mr Carington’s
valuable and objective demonstration of countersunilarity between
the Feda-vehicle (if he will let me use this phrase) and the ordinary
system of association-tracks in the Leonard mind gives us the clear
fact that the machinery exists. My conjecture about the way it
works may or may not turn into a useful instrument for qualitative
analysis. An interesting question for further study Avill be whether
the striking ability for precise clairvoyant description of objects,
which is characteristic of Feda at her best, seems to be expressed
through the “ Feda-vehicle ” alone. It will complicate the theory
if Feda seems at times to use both vehicles, as is quite probable.
Psychological formations have a way of straying outside the dia-
grams marked out for them on paper. And it is difficult to say
when Feda is really to be taken as operating alone. In most good
cases of the clairvoyance of objects, a communicator-personaUty is
said to be co-operating closely in the process of getting the descrip-
tion through.^

So far I have touched on hypotheses about the mental mechanisms
through which expression is given to the hnpulse to communicate.
I am not specially concerned with the impulse to convey informa-
tion of paranormal origin. It is my business, in this paper, to give
maximum weight to hypotheses of extra-sensory perception, where
there is evidence for these, in order to be as clear as possible on the
point whether anything beyond extra-sensory perception needs to
be assumed. But we shall be neglecting evidence if we fail to take
notice of one curious fact about the impulse to transmit extra-
sensory perceptions. When these phenomena are being investigated
for their own sake, and isolated from what I will call the communi-
cator-impulse, the range of success both in quantity and quality
seems to be definitely limited, in comparison with the successes
observed when communicator-impulse is present. The history of
experimental telepathy had produced a strong impression that this
hmitation existed, and recent quantitative work such as Professor
Rhine’s — confirmed by that of Mr Tyrrell with a more discriminating
technique but a sunilar method of assessment — shows a pecuhar

^ e.g. the incident of the Adeline Genee statuette, Proc., vol. xxxi, Part
81, p. 386 et seq. Good examples of clairvoyance by Feda when apparently
operating alone seem to be all in unpubhshed material.

20 Kenneth Richmond : Preliminary Studies of [part

tendency of successes to hover aliout an average of 10% above
chance, ^^dly there should be a threshold at al:)Out 30%, when
chance-ex])ectation is 20%, tloes not appear ; but the nature of the
limitation may be provisionally explained (with some backing from
the behaviour of Mr Carington’s figures) as a difficulty of the mind
in admitting extra-sensory perceptions into what might well be a
confusing competition with normal perceptions. It is a possible
conjecture that 10% is about the proportion of elementary “ intui-
tional ” judgments which the mind is organised to admit into its
everyday workings. (I refer to the quite ordinary and unspecialised
“ intuitional ” acts of the mind which seem, as a grouping, to shade
off into instinctive acts and are often roughly descriljed as instinc-
tive.) E.S.P. expeiiments with young children and people from
primitive races might show interesting variations.

In the study of phenomena where communicator-impulse is
present, the 2:>icture appears to change completely. Numerical
assessment is hitherto lacking of extra-sensory successes that occur
in the course of communications ; but there seems to be no question
that in striking and detailed accuracy, and in the number of correct
results that can be produced in one context and at one time, the
paranormal material presented as evidence for communication is in
a much higher class than that elicited by E.S.P. experiments. This
fact suggests that there is a special “ virtue ” in the communicator-
impulse. It need not by itself suggest that communicators are real
persons. It may suggest that extra-sensory perceptions which the
mind finds it difficult to admit on the same terms as normal per-
ceptions, may gain admission very much more readily as elements
in an acceptable myth. It is another question whether it is probable
that a myth without basis in reality would obtain regular and con-
sistent support from the intuitional functions of the mind. This is
not found to be the case in the ordinary course of psychological
research, though psychologists differ widely in the kind of reality
that they discern Irehind the operations of imagery and symbolism.

This brings me to the difficult question, difficult, that is, to discuss
in small compass, of a hypothesis about the nature of the com-
municator-impulse. This, of course, involves a hypothesis about
the nature of “ the communicator ”, but I should like to emphasise
the importance of a step which we are apt to leave out in the dis-
cussion, after we have considered the mental mechanisms through
which mediumistic utterance may work. An understanding of
machinery, even when it is complete, may leave a good deal un-
explained. An understanding of the machinery of a car may explain
why it goes, but not why it goes to Tavistock Square. The hypothesis

145]

the Recorded Leonard Material

that there is a human driver, so highly probable in the case of the
car, may supply a misleading analogy if we transfer it to all mechan-
isms that work in an observed direction. But a hy])othesis is neces-
sary to account for the direction as well as the mechanism — and in
the case of commimications, for the following of a complicated
choice of paths by a process that looks very hke steering. The
impulse to follow a given track must be analysed, or we are in
danger of jumping to one of two conclusions — either that there
“ must ” be a spirit working the mechanism, or that the mechanism
is working itself.

What is it necessary to assume about the impulse that produces
communications ? First, that if it proceeds from the trance-mind
alone, that mind has powers not only of obtaming, selecting and
arranging paranormal information, but of effective dramatisation
without a model (as would be specially the case in proxy sittings) ;
and for the existence of these powers we have nothing that can be
called evidence. Second, that if it proceeds from other incarnate
minds, these minds, to produce the observed phenomena, must be
able to collaborate telepathically to form an integrated system of
memories and characteristics, not only conveying this as a whole to
the medium, but convejdng, also by telepathy, a characteristic
personal drive and manner of self-expression. Again, there is insuf-
ficient evidence for paranormal powers of this order. Third, that if
a generahsed concept such as “ telepathy ”, or a reservoir of
memories, is thought of as an effective cause, we have to endow
these things with dynamic fimctions so much resembling personality
that it becomes useless to think of them as impersonal. (I have
not, so far, foimd it very useful to entertain the idea that more or
less disintegrated wisps of memory and motive can somehow persist
in vacuo, and influence phenomena.)

The types of assumption, in fact, which follow upon the three
kinds of hypothesis which I have suggested, appear to be too wide
and carefree for scientific use. I am not throwing the hypotheses
aside as falsities, but trying to put them in their place as myths that
may or may not prove to have some truth behind them. I have a
good deal of respect for myths, and indeed, I propose to adopt one
as containing the working hypothesis that seems hkely to work
best. This is the myth provided by mediumistic utterance itself,
that the communicator-impulse proceeds from disembodied spirits.

It is a dehberate method of approach, not an ingenious but un-
necessary comphcation, to treat the hypothesis as something that
has to be disentangled from a myth. The real comphcation becomes
visible if we accept, as a working hypothesis, the bulk of what we

Kenneth Richmond : Preliminary Studies of [part

are told at sittings about communicators, and then see what assump-
tions we are obliged to make. Broadly, these are a body of spurious
assumptions, many of them only half-conscious and so outside
rational control, which centre in the suggested belief that the com-
municator of the seance-room “ is ” the deceased person who is
being represented. If we substitute “ is partly ” for “ is ”, we are
making assumptions about the nature and behaviour of personality-
elements which are very likely to be misleading. It is here that we
can keep closer to justifiable assumptions by thinking in terms of
communicator-impulse rather than of communicator-personality.
I think we can argue, with a minimum of fantasy, the existence of
an impulse to dramatise on the part of the medium ( a natural and
respectable impulse when the mediumship is of a high grade), com-
bined in greater or less degree with an impulse to co-operate with
and assist the dramatisation on the part of a discarnate person.
Essentially, we are in touch, at a sitting, with a subliminal actor in
the medium (there is plenty of evidence to be gathered from hyp-
notic experiments for the existence of a subliminal actor in the
human mind), who in turn is in more or less close telepathic touch
with the original of the role. But we are not dealing, at any rate in
the case of a reliable medium, with an actor depending on a
memorised part ; the actor is extemporising, and we are assuming
a telepathic collaborator to account for the extemporisation effec-
tively reproducing a verifiable character unknown to the medium.
A possible faint analogue to the process is the power some musicians
have of extemporising duets together, without previously agreeing
upon a theme. The subliminal actor, apparently, “ gags ” when
telepatliic impulse fails to assist the extemporising impulse, and
probal)ly is not at all sure which is which. This is certainly the case
with automatists who obtain script with fairly clear consciousness
of what comes to expression.

^^'e may note that the sitter, on this hypothesis, is behaving with
complete scientific correctness in also collaborating in the dramatic
process, whether telepathically, which cannot be helped if and when
it ha])])cns, or l)y treating the dramatised personality as entirely
what it professes to be. A good dramatic critic is not a person who
refuses to admit full dramatic illusion into his mind, though he has
become, by practice, fully aware at the same time of dramatic
technique.

The jmint of this hypothesis about the communicator-impulse —
that it is a s])ecialised subhminal form of the dramatic impulse
common to humanity, combined with more or less of a telepathic
impulse from a discarnate person — is that it imports from what I

145]

the Recorded Leonard Material

am respectfully calling the communicator-myth the minimum
assumption that I think will account for the observed phenomena.
It leaves untouched the deeper problems of personahty-structure
which are dealt with in Lord Balfour’s impressive paper on the
Willett medimnship.^ But scientifically, to accept the idea of dis-
carnate influence is a very large assumption of the unknown, based
on an assertion which is part of the phenomena, and on a human
intuition which is suspect of representing a desire rather than a per-
ception. However, with the best will in the world I cannot relate
the observed impulse and its outcome in evidential statement to
any known factor that provides for the co-ordination of the impulse.
There is no reason to suppose that extra-sensory impacts are so
thoughtful as to select and integrate themselves into an illusory
but etfective representation of a communicator ; I cannot imagine
them selected and integrated, without a model, by the undirected
trance-mind of the medium ; while the hypothesis of telepathy from
the living as a sufficient cause of communications requires para-
normal abilities, added to a genius for telepathic conspiracy, with
which we have as yet no excuse for crediting ourselves.

Turning from hypotheses to what may safely be described as
psychological facts, I think it is of some importance to consider
the fact of organisation in a communicator-personality. The
term organisation is used in psychology to indicate the way in
which a set of dispositions becomes mtegrated. A control-
personality becomes pretty strongly organised ; a communicator-
personality, as a rule, less so. Feda is able to withstand the quite
considerable psychological impacts entailed by a word-association
test without noticeable change of personality (whether it is the
whole of “ Feda ”, mcluding the paranormal functions, that has
been tested, or only a comparatively mechanical “ Feda- vehicle ”,
we cannot know). The communicator whom j\Ir Drayton Thomas
allows to be known, for brevity, as John, and other communicators
whose “ vehicles ” (in my hypothesis, dramatic) have had years m
which to become firmly organised, are similarly able — and, fortu-
nately, for us, willing — to undergo wcrd-association tests, with the
results that Mr Carington has investigated and described.^ Again,
it is difficult to guess whether the fugitive elements of paranormal
faculty, and by hypothesis of discarnate influence, may be present
in the psychological formation at the time when it is being tested.
(We are not sure, in any case, whether the phrase “ at the time ”
has any particular meaning in this context.) We may l)e observing

* Proc. S.P.R., vol. xliii, p. 41. - Proc, S.P.R., vol. xLiii, 2). 319.

Kenneth Richmo7ul : Preliminary Studies of [part

the application of the tests to an organised “ vehicle ” which reacts
in accordance with the habits of association previously impressed
upon it. The results are not the less interesting and significant if
this is the case, but the possibility may affect the expectations that
we form of results from other and less habitually organised com-
municator-formations.

For an example, the Compton communicator in one of Miss Nea
Walker’s proxy cases with Mrs Leonard ^ appears to have particu-
laiiy good organisation, beginning from the first sitting ; and the
character is that of a medical man, scientifically interested in the
process of communication. It would be interesting to discover
whether this personality, after the quieting-down of certain emo-
tional elements, would and could respond consistently to word-
association tests ; but I think it woiild be in no way surprising if
the psychological formation ]>roved unable to hold together under
the conditions. And in general, I think we are apt to leave out of
consideration the probable strength, or depth, of organisation, in
many forms of psychical research, when we propose either to vary
the conditions of experiment, or to apply to a new case conditions
which have proved satisfactory with an old-established one. Con-
siderations of this kind may also suggest a reason for Mrs Leonard’s
recent practice of giving sittings to none but old-established sitters.
This suggestion leads on to the point that organisation, whether of
a paranormal kind or not, must obviously subsist between medium
and sitter — a fact of which the implications are often much better
recognised by the investigator who relies on common sense than by
the enthusiast for some particular theory. It is very much more
difficult in psychical than in psychological research to vary the
conditions of experiment with any approach to an idea of what
changes are in fact being made in the organisations involved.

The facts of organisation may account for one curious pheno-
menon in communicator-psychology : that it is new communi-
cators (such as “ I)r Compton ”) and old established communi-
cators (such as “ John ”) who seem to show the most effective
organisation, though they may differ in stability. In between the
phases of novelty and of further development tlaere seems often to
be a flat period. This may be analogous to the insphation of the
young artist, conqjaratively unstable and easily upset, which appears
to go underground when the technique of the art is first studied
systematically, but reajipears — if it survives — in maturer, more

1 Thromjh a Stmeger's Hands (Hutchinson). The Comj)ton Case. This is
an cxcc])tion to strict proxy technique, but the fact is not of importance
here.

145]

the Recorded Leonard Material

stable and more readily accessible form after the technique has been
mastered.

In suggesting that we have a long way to go before we begin to
understand the Protean forms of organisation that occur in such
complex psychological events as the Leonard ]ihenomena, I am not
suggesting that it is useless to try to control the conditions of
experiment. The development and success of proxy technique
show that this is not the case. But while it is most desirable to
brmg psychical experiments into a jjosition like that of physical
exjieriments, where they can be repeated or varied at will, we have
to recognise a wide difference between repeating the ajiparent con-
ditions of a psychic phenomenon and reproducing the actual and
probably obscure organisation which enabled it to hapjjen. AVhen
the psychic phenomenon to be tested is reduced to the simplest type,
such as extra-sensory awareness of an electric bulb being lit in one
of five closed boxes (in Mr Tyrrell’s recent experiments), the organisa-
tion involved is found to be none too simple or easy to understand ;
when we come to the very complicated structure of the Leonard
organisations it is most difficult to experiment with any knowledge
of what we are about. What is useless is to form judgments of this
type : “ If he (a given communicator) can do this, he should be
able to do that ”. “ He ” is likely to involve an assumption that

the communicator “ is ” the deceased person, not a complex repre-
sentation ; and “ should ” assumes that we know how the repre-
sentation can and cannot operate, when in fact we know very little
about it. The best method of varying the conditions of experiment
seems to be to observe what variations occur spontaneously, and
to select those which seem to be most fruitful and to conform most
exactly to test conditions. A series of such selections can, in prac-
tice, result in a very large variation from previous conditions ; but
the process is gradual, and may arouse impatience in those who
want immediately to try out some new experiment, which may have
every chance of upsetting the organisation involved.

There is involution as well as evolution of organised psychic
trends, producing stereotyped modes of thought and action. These
can be useful, as in the usefulness of habit and routine, and in the
establishment of junctions, as it were, in the mind, which form
habitual points of reference for systems of ideas ; or vicious, as in
bad habits, thinking by formula, and fixations of ideas (popularly
called “ complexes ”, though often mistakenly). I approached the
Leonard records with a strong impression that they would show a
tendency to the use of stock formulae, on the hit-or-miss principle :
not in any reprehensible way, but from a tendency which I thought

20 Kenneth Richmond : Preliminary Studies of [part

would be natural in a professional medium, and thought I had
observed in my own sittings in the past, to fall into a habit of using
the tracks that usually lead somewhere with the average sitter, and
the words and phrases that oftenest produce a response. When I
came to an examination of Miss Nea Walker’s records of proxy
sittings, with her admirable groupings, under individual heads, of
points which have special critical interest, I was not surprised to
see that one of the headings she had employed was “ Cliches
But I was surprised to see that this heading had perforce been
abandoned, after points had been extracted from a number of
sittings, because the pages on which the heading had been typed
contained hardly anything. Organised routes for leading up to a
favourite type of subject are certainly present, such as one can
observe in the conversational hal)its of one’s friends (these are easier
to observe than one’s own habits) ; but I find on careful examination
that these stock openings have a remarkable way of leading each
to a different track of association which is appropriate to the given
communicator. I have tried to interpret this as a process in which
the motivation arises in the trance-mind alone, and the deflection
towards evidential fact is due to telepathic impacts from the living ;
but the difficulty of accounting for selection among such impacts is
very great, especially at a proxy sitting, unless we assume that only
selected impacts arrive, which lands us again in assuming the trans-
mission of impulse and organisation by some fiction-factory in the
minds of bereaved people at a distance.

To take an instance which occurs in Miss Nea Walker’s published
material, as well as in several unpublished records, there is a curious
Leonard-tendency to make use of the word “ mount ”, apparently
as a feeler towards place-names containing it. This occurs several
times in Through a Stranger s Hands and elsewhere, and is the
nearest thing to a true cliche that I have so far observed in the
Leonard material. It is a likely conjecture that almost any anno-
tator could associate something more or less relevant with the word
“ mount ”. These allusions I should class as evidentially worthless
in themselves, and I rather dishke giving any weight to them at all ;
but when they are dro})ped into contexts which appear to be far
from fortuitous, the element of “ fishing ” seems to involve a fairly
good idea where the individual trout is. At the end of Through a
Stranger s Hands, on the last page of the van Tricht Case, references
can be found to an episode in which “ the -mount ” has been associ-
ated with the name Diemont, not because this very fortuitous-
sounding association struck Dr van Tricht as in itself compelling,
but because it was so placed as to fit a given context like a piece in

145]

the Recorded Leonard Material

a jigsaw puzzle. (I am not here assuming any characteristic in
pieces of jigsaw puzzles except that they fit, and make part of a
pattern.)

Corresponding to certain possible cliche words, there are what
may be regarded as cliche ideas or suggestions. These, again, are
few : the most frequent one that I have observed will j^robably l^e
recognised by a number of Leonard sitters. This is a suggestion
that a visit has been paid, or has to be paid, to some vaguely indi-
cated locality which has sad or painful associations. The conjecture
is pretty obvious that this could be described as a visit-to-the-grave
formula, which has become organised because it is a very likely
shot. The formula, however, has often led on into association-
tracks which are individually appropriate. In one proxy case (un-
published : records are in the S.P.R. rooms) details concerning a
grave were given which happened to be known to Miss Walker
through correspondence following a previous sitting ; and on the
following day these were apparently supplemented by further allu-
sions, recognised only by the annotator in America, in the spon-
taneous script of an automatist who, as I can personally bear
witness, knew nothing of the case, but was instructed in her script
to send the script to Miss Walker for verification. The implication
that effective communicator-impulse was at work does not seem to
be affected by the fact that a customary formula had first introduced
the subject, which was then elaborated at the Leonard sitting and
elsewhere. And it has to be remembered that the subject itself is
a common feature in cases of bereavement.

I have thought it of use to pursue a rather dull investigation, of
which the foregoing are surface sam])les, into this question of
organised trends in the trance-mind, because it is of fundamental
importance to make sure that we are not mistaking trends of the
process, in trance-communication, for evidence of intention on the
part of communicators. Isolated examples of evidence for intention
can be very strong (as, for example, in “ The Problem of the Pipes ”,
an episode in Mr Drayton Thomas’s proxy case of Bobby Newlove,
Proc., Vol. XLIII, Part 143, p. 481), but I am speaking more of the
general evidence of intention that is to be inferred from veridical
communications as a whole. Given a wish on the part of the
medium to produce evidence of survival, and long experience in
trance, with a multitude of sitters, of the lines of suggestion
which are most likely to produce vivid personal associations, it is
very possible for systems of safe guesses to be automatically
organised, which become endowed with a great appearance of
authenticity and individual quality when they are enriched by

28 Kenneih Richmond : Preliminary Studies of [part

striking annotations. The intentions manifested at a sitting might
lie types of intention in the trance-mind alone which have been
found to Ije readily supplemented by the associations of sitters and
annotators. I think this machinery certainly exists, though much
less pervasively than I imagined when I started the investigation ;
luit I think the most interesting thing about it is the regularity with
which it defeats its apparent object. In the best sittings, it is the
allusions which the communicator-impulse appears to have forced
away from the expected rut, that arrive at something specific in
the mind of the annotator. But it is advisable to plough through a
number of the worst sittings, where “ stock ” suggestions and feelers
are chiefly to be found, in order to see how completely the most
willing annotator is left groping for any trace of individual signifi-
cance in what is said. I have tried deliberately to distort some of
these passages into any semblance of an evidential meaning for
myself, not at a glance but carefully putting down on paper every-
thing favourable that I could think of, and I found it hard and un-
productive work. Now and then an accidental association seemed
to be working out brilliantly, with a little spurious encouragement,
but it would regularly be put out of court by something quite
incompatible in the context.

I have found in fact that the search for evidence of effective
intention — effective, that is, to produce the observed results — in the
organisations that seem to occur in the mind of the medium alone,
is a search that appears to lead away from its objective. I think
that any attentive reading of Leonard material must lead to a feel-
ing that the element of intention in the trance-mind itself is a
vaguely grojung thing, continually deflected into this or that dis-
tinctive channel by intention of quite a different type ; but it
seemed worth while to test this feeling as thoroughly as possible for
illusions due to the coincidence of mediumistic gropings, having only
a vaguely organised intention, with potent associations contributed
by the sitter or annotator, the whole being made the more impres-
sive by evidence of paranormal acquaintance with facts. The point
is an elementary one, and there are specific episodes which it fails
to cover, but it might account for a good deal of apparent com-
municator-impulse. In my opinion the explanation appears to be
specious, in the great majority of cases, on any close examination
of the way the current of thought and speech actually flows. The
vague forms of organised intention that seem attributable to the
trance-mind alone, with its past experience, appear as being quite
distinctly manipulated, deflected and sometimes negatived by
another form of intention. This interplay and partial opjiosition of

145]

the Becorded Leonard Material

intentions can of course be dramatised, and on my present hypo-
thesis are dramatised ; but, once again, extempore dramatic impulse
does not seem to accoimt for the observed content of communicator-
impulse, and we have seen the difficulties of attributing a function
of guidance either to “ telepathy ” as an abstraction or to the
incarnate minds from whose miconscious collaboration it might be
assmned to proceed.

One of Mrs Leonard’s phenomena appears to represent communi-
cator-impulse in a particularly concentrated form. This is the
whispered, or sotto-voce remark, sometimes preceding a more
elaborated version, out loud, of the statement (often a less evidential
version), and sometimes interjected into, and interrupting or cor-
recting, the more usual flow of speech. It is necessary to have heard
these sotto-voce remarks to appreciate the curious impression of
rapid, fugitive certainty of touch that they convey ; but although
I am speaking of something that cannot be put on literal record for
examination, I had better note that I find it difficult to classify this,
and certain other impressions of utterance in specially close touch
with a motivation apart from the medimn, as superlatively clever
dramatic effects arranged by the subliminal actress. Not that un-
conscious motivation cannot produce brilhant dramatic effects —
some of the hysterias have staged astonishingly convinced and con-
vincing dramatic work ; the point is one of quahty, and of acquired
psychological instinct on the part of the observer for which I claim
nothing except that it exists, and asserts rightly or wrongly that
these particular Leonard phenomena are not much like dramatic
constructs. I am prepared to find my dramatisation-hypothesis
wearing pretty thin in certain important places, though I think
dramatisation may still best describe the medium’s unconscious
contribution to the blend that usually occurs.

The moments and periods in a sitting which especially impress the
hearer’s mind with the feeling that something outside ordinary
experience is happening, include manifestations of character and
personahty which are extremely difficult to deal with scientifically.
It is thoroughly bad psychology to leave out of consideration things
that produce strong emotional or intuitional impressions upon the
observer, whatever hypotheses they appear to support ; and it is
thoroughly bad method to give weight to these impressions (whether
as evidence of survival or as evidence of creduhty) without any
means of knowing what kind of weight it is. To revert to the
Compton Case, in Through a Strangers Hands, the general reader,
having no previous acquahitance with Leonard phenomena, receives
a certain distinct feeling of impressiveness about the personahty of

30 Kenneth Richmond : Preliminary Studies of [part

the Compton communicator. I, having had Leonard sittings and
investigated a good deal of Leonard material, receive a heightened
impression through knowing the type of intuitional atmosphere,
and being aware also that this personality is not only impressive
luit distinctive among a great number of other impressive com-
municators. Miss Nea Walker, being present at the sitting, and in
this case having known Dr Compton slightly, receives a more direct
impression, which can be gathered from her notes on the case,
though she has correctly kept it in the background. The annotators,
Dr “ Davison ” and a brother-in-law, receive a further impression
which, though derived from cold typescript and unfortified by
experience of Leonard sittings, is heightened in another direction
by a fairly intimate knowledge of Compton characteristics.

Now, I find myself possessed of the opinion that if the Compton-
Nea Walker-Leonard sittings could by some means be reproduced
exactly as they occurred, with another person as auditor who both
had long and critical experience of Leonard sittings, and also had
known Dr Compton in his lifetime exceedingly well, that person
would receive a still more definite and vivid impression that the
personality of Dr Compton was in some way a participant in the
Ipeing of the Comjpton communicator. I am not advancing this
0])inion as an argument, but trying to account for its existence as a
psychological fact. First, it is based on a certain amount of reason-
able analogy. On other occasions communicators have made their
ap])earance, and the evidence for their authenticity has risen in
impressiveness and evidential value, the more it has been weighed
by ])eople having the requisite personal knowledge and critical
experience. Second, I find that I am undoubtedly influenced by
this consideration : that the Comjpton communicator has not only
“ come to life ” in my own mind, as a being of whom independent
and characteristic reactions are to be expected (this could be said
of any really well-drawn character in fiction), but that this character
appears to be recognised in three different ways by three different
people who knew the original. If I were a judge who had to decide
a case at law, in which A was accusing B, a novelist, of having
borrowed A’s personality to make a fictional character, I should
(I hope) study the character in the book carefully to gain an impres-
sion of the personality that was portrayed : and I should then be
influenced in opinion — and so would the jury, however I directed
them in law — by testimony from A’s friends that they had recog-
nised the portrait at sight, apart from facts in A’s life which the
novel might have reproduced more or less as they occurred. The
influence of evidence which was quite unweighable objectively, ex-

145]

the Recorded Leonard Material

cept in terms of the number of witnesses^^saying snnilar things,
might be regrettable in strict law ; but a moment could in fact
arrive where I should know pretty positively that further witnesses
would only increase the impression that the character in B’s book
was really based on A.

The pouit is not that such a moment ought to arrive in judging
the credibihty of a communicator, but that it does arrive, and by a
process that cannot really be reduced to logical terms. It is possible
to have logical evidence of character, as well as evidence of intention,
by amassing details of mental and verbal behaviour, and character-
istic operations of memory, which are recognised as closely resembl-
ing those of an actual person. These can be put into order on some-
thing hke an evidential basis. It seems possible that hlr Carington’s
treatment of word-association material may estabhsh characteristics
belonging to a given communicator and not belonging to either of
two independent medimns who present that communicator. This
would at least demonstrate the probability of psychological “ traces ”
having a common origin outside either medium’s mind, and would
be in the same held of inquiry as evidence of character. But I think
it is necessary to face the fact that objective and more or less cal-
culable evidence, in this held, cannot help being subordinate in our
minds to opinion founded on personal and subjective impressions —
or the lack of them. It is a truism that opinion is much less hkely
to bias our view of evidence if we admit and allow for it, rather than
pretend that we are mca]3able of bias. And I have tried to suggest
how this kind of opinion, based on mental processes more appropriate
to the law-court than to the laboratory, can be formed on an
entirely respectable basis.

This factor of opinion cannot help being of very considerable
importance when we come to the study of a long-established com-
municator-personahty such as that of “ John ”. In this case the
organisation of communicator-impulse has had the advantage of
Mr Drayton Thomas’s firmly consolidated opinion, the growth of
nearly twenty years, that the operative personahty is that of his
father, John Drayton Thomas. It would be an error of false analogy
from physical science to regard this as a factor to be discounted. In
deahng with msensible things and forces, the experimenter’s behef
in his working hypothesis does not affect his results except as it
affects his own behaviom’. In psychological and psychical research,
the experimenter’s behef is part of the active organisation that
occurs. Its absence may constitute a negative suggestion which
acts U23011 phenomena hke a low temperature upon a chemical
reaction. What I may call the equable temperatme of Mr Drayton

32 Kenneth Richmond : Preliminary Studies of [part

Thomas’s opinion is a condition in which given results occur. It is
correct to examine the results with the coolest scientific scepticism,
but not to complain that they occurred in whatever conditions were
psychologically necessary. It may be a difficulty of the sceptic — I
have traced this in myself — that he unconsciously resents pheno-
mena that decline to occur in his own presence.

On the other hand, it is advisable to ask at the outset what results
can be attributed to Mr Drayton Thomas’s state of opinion, which
entails a state of expectation. Expectation is always a difficult
subject to handle, because the naive assumption that “ this could
not have come from my own mind, as I was not thinking of it, and
it smprised me ”, is often misleading. Experiment in telepathy
suggests that the things not consciously thought of may be the
easiest to convey. It becomes necessary to allow for a large, and
even for an apparently hnprobable, field of expectation in the mind
of a sitter awaiting communications from a known personality.

A striking and consistent characteristic of John is a tendency to
relate paranormal evidence of many kinds to some definite associa-
tion with his own typical activities in the past, or to family associa-
tions with given persons or places. To take a random instance from
pubhshed material,^ the first group of newspaper tests attempted
by this communicator included a mention of soap as among the
things to be fomid on a forthcoming page of The Times. This was
marked as a failure, until at the next sitting, “ some name suggest-
ing soap ” (itahcs mine) was suggested for the allusion. The name
was clearly identified in the part of the page that had been indicated
before the issue of The Times was out, but so far (m this instance)
the emendation could be put down to normal observation by the
medium after the paper was available. However, there were definite
associations, dating from twenty years before, between the soap-
maker’s family and the Drayton Thomas family, and there had been
an engagement between members of the two families, so that a piece
of paranormal evidence (in this instance, containing an evidential
flaw, if one chooses to think the “ soap ” clue a chance shot) was
supported by the aptness of the given allusion to the communi-
cator’s family mterests.

In this and very many similar mstances, in the course of the
Drayton Thomas sittings, is it arguable that Mr Drayton Thomas’s
latent memories could have supphed what must be called an active
blit imconscious expectation that these characteristic allusions
would be made ? There are certain cases where there appears not
to have been any latent memory, but when the sitter possesses
^ Some New Evidence, far Human Survival (Collins, 1922), p. 216 et seq.

145]

the Recorded Leonard Material

tlie requisite memories the evidence for telepathy l^etweeii the
living certainly suggests that a number of associations suitable
for the communicator could have filtered through in some form,
though not so large a nmnber as are found in the records, nor in so
purposive a form. It is the assumption of purposive and construc-
tive action, either in Mr Drayton Thomas’s unconscious mind con-
trary to his conscious intention (the mind does not work well in
states of conflict), or applied by the trance-mind of Mrs Leonard to
his latent memories, for which I can find no evidential justification
whatever. Chance would be a very much more credible explanation
for such mstances of the connection of these elements of memory
with paranormal data, if there were not so many of them. It seems
to me extremely difficult to explain the characteristic behaviour of
the “ John ” mentality, as the producer of a typical range of evidence
through a typical mode of purposive activity, on any basis that
identifies this mentality with a part of Mr Drayton Thomas’s mind.
The amount of speculative assumption that would have to be
admitted only grows larger, the more closely such a hypothesis is
followed up through the detail of the records.

It seems to be a matter of commonsense to keep evidence of
character upon a dynamic as well as a factual basis. It is not diffi-
cult to be misled l^y a striking chance resemblance at a given moment,
or at a small number of separate given moments, between what is
presented in a communication and what would be characteristic of
a particular person. What is more impressive in the long run,
though it may provide less high-hghts, is the persistent combination
of evidence of intention with evidence of character. In reading a
considerable number of records from the same communicator, day
after day, I have noticed that the mind tends to become insensitive
to the element of characteristic intention — one begins to take it for
granted — until some new episode arouses the mental comment,
“ How hke him ! ” and the critical sense immediately chimes in
with an accusation of begging the question. If I were asked to say
what, precisely, gives me the impression of characteristic intention
throughout the “ John ” records that I have so far studied, I should
find it difficult to give a more pertinent reply than that the whole
type of intention ap^jears to change as soon as I turn to the records
of another communicator. I merely make note of the fact, that the
unpression of characteristic intention does increase with |)rolonged
study of the material, and does develop a continuity which does not
seem to be my own contribution.

Indeed, continuity in maintaining the hypothesis of discarnate
communication, and in giving it consistent fair play, is under a

Kenneth Richmond : Preliminary Studies of [part

handicap while one is continually and critically questioning every
individual eleinent that can support the hypothesis. “ Can I think
of this as not being in character ? ” “ Could that be regarded as

accident ami not intention, or as someone else’s intention ? ” Such a
process of cross-questioning is extremely destructive, and I have been
snr])rised at its not having a disintegrating effect upon the material
as an evidential whole. I have been especially interested in the
“ 2)ipes ” episode already referrerl to (p. 27 of this paper), because it
showed evidence of intention — not to say pertinacity — which could
be carefully examined and then taken for granted, as a single aim
at one ])articular objective, persisting through several sittings and
a considerable period of time. The case, as Mr. Drayton Thomas
has himself jnesented it in Proceedings, can speak for itself ; what
1 am concerned with here is the effect of having this one factor of
intention stalulised, as it were, in the mind while one is reviewing
the tract of material in which it is concerned. The faculty of
critical attention is very much more free for giving balanced con-
sideration to other evidential factors ; and the study of this material
has led me to realise to what an extent the mind is operating a
complicated sliding-scale process, with every value shifting in un-
known ratio to the others, when it attempts the task of scientific
discrimination among diverse hypotheses at the same time.

I am inclined to think, upon a not as yet extensive experience of
applying 2)sychological criticism to the Leonard material, that a
nearer ajqnoach to exact method will probably be found by taking
the hypothesis of discarnate communication — or any other hypo-
thesis that promises continuously to account for the facts — as the
main line for theoretical development, and not subjecting the
hypothesis to an unceasing barrage of reservations and alternatives.
If the hyjjothesis, carefully followed uj), produces a spurious psycho-
logical structure, this should be capable of demolition. And I have
a strong suspicion that, in following closely and without distraction
upon the trail of a communicator regarded as a human being, we
shall discover a good many hitherto unnoticed facts about the pro-
cesses of communication, which will be of use in understanding the
necessary conditions of experiment or of further research into the
most complex of all our probleins.

145]

the Recorded Leonard Material

An Example of Evidence of Intention in Book-test Material ^
(The “ La Vita Nuova ” Case)

Early in my study of the Drayton Thomas sittings I came upon
the long series of book-tests, of which a number have been pub-
lished m Some New Evidence for Eiuman Survival ; and I noticed
repeated statements at the sittings that book-tests had some general
trend which would be discovered, and that a good deal was to be
found out by comparing one book-test with another — something
apparently of the nature of evidence through cross-correspondence.
Hitherto, book-tests seem to have been examined chiefly for their
evidential value as units, though as the technique of this form of
communication developed, from 1918 to 1921, the units tended to
become groups of tests given at one time, and having some inter-
relation with one another.

In Mrs Sidgwick’s “ An Examination of Book-Tests ” (Proc.,
Vol. XXXI, Part Ixxxi) the ordinary technique of a book-test is
thus exemphfied ; —

“ Feda might tell the sitter that the communicator wants him to
go to the book-case between the fireplace and the window in his
study, and in the third shelf from the bottom to take the seventh
book from the left and open it at the 48th page, where about one-
third of the way down he will find a passage which may be regarded
as an appropriate message from the communicator to him.”

I think most careful investigators of book-tests, at this time, were
trying to narrow down the issue to the distinctly important question
whether what teas actually said at the sitting had a really close cor-
respondence with what was found in the passage in the book which
had been so elaborately and selectively indicated. It was often
said, I remember, that if only the exact wmrds of the book could be
given at the sitting, this would be conclusive. It would in fact be
cogent evidence only of extra-sensory perception ; and Mrs Sidg-
wdek, with her unvarying sureness of touch in matters of evidence,
concludes only from her examination of book-tests that evidence of
clairvoyance appears to be estabhshed. She does not put evidence
of communication out of court, but the method of inquiry is one
that puts the problem of intention second to a proper treatment of
the question whether these cases really are, as they seem, para-
normal.

* Containing the substance of a lecture delivered to the Society on 2U Mav,
1935.

36 Kenneth Richmond : Preliminary Studies of [part

It is obvious that the more nearly we coniine ourselves to evidence
that the communicator “ knows ” what is in the book, the less likely
we are to follow up any intention with which that knowledge may
be used, except the simj^le intention to display it. However, there
emerges spontaneously, for what this is worth, a manifest intention
to refer, in the book-tests, to interests and reminiscences which the
communicator and the sitter have in common. Such statements as,
“ This refers to something that was important in your life ten years
ago ”, have a good deal of evidential interest when they are sub-
stantiated.

But we are not fully testing evidence of intention by simply de-
ciding what to expect from what is said at the sitting, and then look-
ing in the book to see if it is there. More satisfactory evidence of
intention is something relevant that we should not have expected
or, still better, could not have expected. Further, the appearance
of a common aim, unsuspected by the sitters, in book-tests given to
different people, would at once raise questions beyond that of a
display of paranormal faculty.

Lady Troubridge and Miss Badclyffe Hail, who made a careful
and thorough compilation for the Society of book-tests given at
their own Leonard sittings, have noted that the subject of “ psy-
chical research ” is very often the content of the book-passages
referred to. If this is the fact, it looks significant, when we remember
that the books selected by the mediumistic process are on all kinds
of subjects, and that the chances of hitting on a passage that will
bear this interj^retation are few and far between. References by
implication to “ psychical research ” could be roughly estimated,
but the phrase does not provide a clear enough dividing line for
purposes of classification, so after some consideration I elected to
classify all the satisfactorily identified book-passages, in the different
collections of Leonard book-tests then before me, according to
whether they did or did not refer appositely to death and the con-
dition of the dead, or to some relation between the dead and the
living. This as a criterion of judgment is still not very exact, but
it seemed in practice to be quite sufficiently so for the purpose.
There were few borderline instances, and these I placed on the
“ No ” side. It may be noted that I avoided tabulating results as
I went along (since visible competition between growing columns
might be a distraction) and had a general imjjression, before count-
iiig up the totals, that there was no more than a significant minority
of positive results. Actually they turned out to be just over 60%,
in a total count of 91 l)ook-tests. Where two or more book-passages
were indicated in one test, I have counted one or more positive

145]

the Recorded Leonard Material

results as one, neglecting negative results in the same test. It will
be remembered that the remaining 40% of tests represent the com-
petition of many other subjects, such as memories shared between
the communicator and the sitter. A general control and selection
of book-tests has, at various sittings, been claimed to be exercised
by certam skilled communicators, who were said to advise and help
others in the use of this technique. The further claim that they
were selecting book-passages that would prove to have some unified
and discernible trend gains possible support from the figures.

As a check-experiment covering part of the ground, I made a
random collection of 500 whole-page examples (for the passages
indicated in book-tests, the “ target ” is usually half a page or less)
from books in the S.P.K. Library, grouping my selections artificially
so as to make a proportional correspondence with l^ook-tests con-
taining more than one reference. I found that a similar estimation
of these pages as containing any allusion to death and the condition
of the dead, or to some relation between the dead and the living,
gave under 20% of positive results. Professor E. K. Dodds has
lured me into a check of the check-experiment by suggesting that
the choice of S.P.E. hbrary-books might not, as I had supposed,
weight the scales in favour of the chance finding of such allusions,
since the S.P.K. has many theoretical books not specially concerned
with the question of survival. Actually, I had avoided technical
treatises ; but I followed up the suggestion that a collection of
novels might have better results,^ and included with these some
definitely spirituahstic books in the proportion of one in five, to
cover the probabilities of Leonard sitters having such books on
their shelves. The result was a positive count of under 12%, again
taking whole pages, and maldng full use of any imaginative inter-
pretations that I could think of. I have been surprised, in taking
random selections from Sir Oliver Lodge’s Raymond, or Life and
Death, to find how very often one hits on a passage that no ingenuity
can twist into an allusion of the type sought for. A great deal of
every book is necessarily devoted to talking around its subject, and
even in pages of the printed record of sittings there is a remarkably
small amount, in actual bulk, of wording that fits the required
classification.

Turning to more mdividual points of intention which may appear
as common to the records of more than one sitter, I should have

1 Here Professor Dodds removed one weight from my scales : for I think
the average of words to a page, in novels, is less than in S. P.R. library-books.
But the results, in any case, should be interpreted as “ of the order of” the
the given percentages ; hence my large precaution of takhig whole pages.

38 Kenneth Richmond : Preliminary Studies of [part

been greatly prolonging my digression into book-test material if I
had made a parallel study of all the different book-tests that are on
record, as they were given week by week to different sitters. On
the hypothesis of communicators’ intention, it seems doubtful
whetiier an extensive collating of results by different sitters would
have been anticipated by the communicators. But it seemed a
reasonable enterprise to look carefully through some records in
which one presumably skilled communicator was specially said to
have taken part in book-test material given to sitters not related
to him, and in such circumstances that all the sitters concerned were
in a favourable jjosition to compare notes. I can refer without
embarrassment to the fact that certain excellent sitters failed to do
so, or to observe what was at least a notable coincidence, because it
is pretty clear that they were misled for once by the psychical
researcher’s excellent acquired instinct agamst any comparing of
notes that may lead to the spoiling of evidence.

Lady Troubridge and Miss Radclyffe Hall made a number of experi-
ments, with interesting results, in the use for book-tests of foreign
books, including Italian, since they had a possible communicator
who had been an Italian scholar. It was said at sittings, however,
that Dr A. W. Verrall (Mrs Salter’s deceased father) would co-operate
uistead in these experiments with Italian books, since skill in the
technique of book-tests was necessary as well as familiarity with the
language. Dr Verrall was a keen student of Dante. (It has been
claimed by Feda that the language in which a book is printed need
not matter, because the meaning of a passage can be “ sensed ”,
but I think there is nothing in evidence by which we can test this
statement.) The claim that Dr Verrall was participating in the
experiments was, so far as I can judge, in no way contradicted by
the character or hterary quality of the results.

In April, 1918, the experimental group of Italian books appears
to have been partially disjpersed, and there was no special arrange-
ment of books in Miss Radclyffe Hall’s flat in London. As in all
book-test records that I have studied, there is in this case no likeli-
hood of Mrs Leonard (then at Datchet) having had access to the
books at any time. Mrs Salter was then in touch with Lady Trou-
bridge and Miss Radclyffe Hall over the question of makmg proper
record of the book-test episodes — we owe to them some of the best-
kept and best-annotated records on the S.P.R. flies — and an oppor-
tunity was, it would appear, rather specially available for Mrs
Salter to be referred naturally, at a sitting, to books in this flat.

On April 23, 1918, Mrs Salter had a sitting alone with Mrs Leonard,
at which these books were mentioned and a group of book-tests

145]

the Recorded Leonard Material

were given. Mrs Sidgmck quotes one of these tests wliich does not
concern us here, and uses the words “ the row of liooks meant hav-
ing been clearly indicated ” {Proc., Vol. XXXI, p. 277), so I need
hardly take up space by quotations to show the process by which a
particular shelf was satisfactorily identified, especially as a second
identification of it will be found later in these pages. Feda says
that half-way down page 13 in the fourth book going from left to
right on this shelf, is something that “ would refer to a part of your ”
(Mrs Salter’s) “ life, when you were about twenty, as near as he can
get . . . certain changes that happened about that age . . . you went
through a transition. It bore fruit later, what you were going through
when you were about twenty.^ ”

At this age Mrs Salter’s experiments in automatism changed over
from table-tilting to automatic writing, and the passage indicated
in the book definitely reminded her of the period and set her look-
ing up old records. The book was the Italian story of a wooden
puppet that came to life, Avventure di Pinocchio {“ Adventures of
Pinocchio ” ; extracts from an Enghsh translation were broadcast
to children a few years ago by the B.B.C.). The passage that
attracted Mrs Salter’s attention ends two lines above a half-way divi-
sion of the letterpress on page 13, and reads as follows (translated) :

“ The piece of wood gave a great shake, and slipping violently
from his hands, went and banged with force against the meagre
shins of poor Gepetto.”

“ The remainder of the page ” (Lady Tro abridge notes when
translating) “ consists of an argument as to the author or cause of
the movement of the wood ”.

The incident of which Mrs Salter was reminded by this passage
could be clearly placed by extant records. Her notes following this
1923 sitting contain the following :

“ The experimenters on this occasion were my mother ” (Mrs
Verrall) “ and myself and the date was September 1, 1903, I being
then twenty years old. After some ‘ Messages ’ had been tilted, my
mother notes that ‘ the communicating intelhgence showed an in-
chnation to move the table and after some rocking which was tiring
and useless we asked if it could move some object in the room. It
said yes, and we asked what. Answer : “ Pencil ”. The pencil was
lying on the brass table near (not the table which was being tilted)
and I moved my foot away so that I might not accidentally shake
the table and make the pencil move. After some time it (the table
used for tilting) suddenly made a dash at me, hit my foot so that I

This and aU citations that foUow are from the original records and notes
of sittings in the Society’s’possession.

40 Kenneth Richmond : Preliminary Studies of [part

moved quickly, touched the brass table and set the pencil rolhng.
This it claimed as a success ! and said in answer to questions that
it was humbug and this was what was intended. Neither Helen
nor I had the least expectation that it would do this sort of thing.’ ”

“ I quote this record ” (Mrs Salter’s note continues) “ because it
seems to afford an oddly close parallel to the description nearly
half-way down page thirteen of the test-book of a piece of wood
which gets out of control and hits someone in the legs. But the
fact which seems to me of chief interest in connexion with this book-
test is that in the spring of 1903, when I was within a few months
of being twenty, I did my first experiments in automatic writing.
Now the change from table-tilting (which I had done before) to
automatic writing, might be described as a transition which bore
fruit later, for nearly all my subsequent and more interesting experi-
ments in automatism took the form of writing.”

For those who do not know the Pinocchio story, it is worth noting
that the piece of wood which displays mysterious vitality is the
beginning of the existence of Pinocchio the puppet, with its queer,
semi-human, marionette-hke behaviour. It does not seem a great
stretch of the imagination to compare this with the faculty of auto-
matism as seen from a communicator’s point of view ; and the
whole humour and pathos of puppets, which have a place of their
own in Italian tradition and literature, may easily be thought to
supply an intended context to an allusion connecting puppetry with
automatism. Dr Verrall was an Italian scholar, and it seems that
the whole idea would be in character. I am quite aware that I am
here letting imagmation continue beyond the bounds of evidence,
and I consider that this is a correct experimental use of the imagina-
tion. One can, equally, try to imagine a probable context of thought
in a given case and find, very instructively, that the imagination
is on the wrong track.

The “ Pinocchio ” book-test leads on to the indication of another
book at Mrs Salter’s Leonard sitting. The “ Pinocchio ” book, it
has been seen, is clearly marked down at the sitting by its position
on the shelf, and is subsequently estabhshed as a book that could be
pointed out with intention by the communicator. Feda proceeds
to put the sitter on the track of a second book, this time without
precise identification by place :

“ Within a span of the test-book is a book whose title gives the
effect, no, not quite effect {sotto voce — wait a minute) ’tisn’t quite
right. What would you call it ? It gives the idea of something that
happened to your character or personality about the time your lady
passed over, in a way through her passing over.”

145]

fhe Recorded Leonard Material

Tlie contemporary annotation reads :

“ Tlie seventh book to tlie right of the test Imok appeared to be
the only book whose title could be considered as applying in any
way to Feda’s words. This book was entitled La Vita Nuova and
came well within the span.” Mrs Salter’s associations with this
title, written down soon after the sitting in 1918, were as follows :

“ My mother died on July 2, 1916, and I was married just about
nine months before, on Sept. 28, 1915. La Vita Niiova is associated
in my mind with my wedding because an old friend of my parents.
Dr Butler of Trinity, gave me a beautifully bound copy of it for a
wedding present with good wishes for my own ‘ N ew Life ’ . The phrase
is also associated in my mind with my mother’s death. Several
friends writing to her in reply to a letter informing them of the fatal
character of her illness, referred to my recent marriage, saying that
my mother must be glad to think that I should not be left alone,
but had now a home of my own ; and one friend, writing to me
immediately after my mother’s death, said she felt it had been a
great pleasure to my mother to think of the ‘ New Life ’ that had
begun for me. She used these words in quotation marks. It cannot
of course be said that my new life in the sense of my marriage hap-
pened through my mother’s death, since it preceded it by nine
months, but it should be observed that (a) the word ‘ effect ’ which
Feda first uses is rejected as not expressing what the communicator
desires to convey, and the word ‘ through ’ is modified by ‘ in a
way ’ ; (6) the break with my old life which was begun by my mar-
riage was made complete and final by my mother’s death. During
the nine months after my marriage when my mother was still alive,
I spent more than half my tune with her at Cambridge. It was not
until after my mother’s death that my husband and I settled down
together in the house which we now occupy. When we first married
we were temporarily in rooms.”

There is, clearly, a striking evidential content in these associations,
with its mo.st objective point in the existence of a special copy of
the book itself as a wedding present ; the only evidential weakness,
so far (where this case leaves off in the records), is the factor of
chance in even a highly relevant book-title being “ within a span ”
of a specified book. One might make very many random selections
of about fourteen books in a group without finding, in any such
group, one title having such clear relevance to one’s personal
associations, and Feda’s indications of time and circumstance cer-
tainly narrow down the field ; but the thing is not outside coinci-
dence. On the hypothesis that Dr Verrall inspired the communica-
tion, and was aware of the form in which it was conveyed, he might

42 KeyinetJi Richmond : Preliminary Studies of [part

wish to do something further to put his intention beyond reasonable
doul)t ; or he might have planned this allusion to Dante’s La Vita
Nuova as only one among other converging allusions — a technique
which is suggested by other records as characteristic of this com-
municator. It is towards some such hypothesis that I have been
drawn by what followed.

On the day following Mrs Salter’s sitting, Aj^ril 24th, 1918, and
before Mrs Salter had verified her book-tests of the 23rd or com-
municated with Lady Troubridge and Miss Eadclyffe Hall, Miss
Radclytfe Hall was due for a sitting with Mrs Leonard, which she
attended alone. At the very Ireginning the sitter mentions, for
experimental reasons, a change which is being made with regard to
some books not in London, and not concerned in the present case.
Feda acknowledges the information, and quickly changes the sub-
ject, as follows :

“ Yes, that’s all right. She and Mr Arthur ” (i.e. Miss Eadclyffe
Hall’s communicator and Dr Verrall) “ were doing a test from
the London books, they was giving it to Mrs Nellie ” (Mrs
Salter) “ yesterday, but they’d got it before yesterday.” (This
seems to imply previous preparation.) “ It was Mr Arthur, not
herself.”

Tills clearly directs attention to the previous day’s sitting, and a
sotto-voce remark a little later, “ Wait a minute — she told you Mr
Arthur got one ”, seems to show anxiety that the point should have
been got through. Feda mentions that “ Mr Arthur ” had told Mrs
Salter that the bookshelf was “ about four feet from the ground ”
(this had l)een an addition to the indications given for identifying
the shelf, which was found to lie four feet and three-quarters of an
inch from the floor).

The eighth book from the left is then mentioned, and its 98th
page, “ about half way down ”. It is clear enough to the reader
that this should lie on the same shelf that was indicated in Mrs
Salter’s sitting, but Miss Eadclyffe Hall, not knowing about this
sitting, except from Feda, and being busy with her notes, naturally
asks, “But where is the book ? ” Feda replies :

“ In London where the line of books is. There are two places
where books are. This is the long line of books.” Feda adds that
there are curtains in the room of “ a dull, dark green ”, which is
correct for the room with the long bookshelf ; and Miss Eadclyffe
Hall feels assured of knowing exactly where to look. (If she had
not been so careful, liut had relied on the reference to Mrs Salter’s
sitting, they might have been led to compare their findings and to
discover the point which we shall come upon later.)

145]

the Recorded Leonard Material

The content of the required book-passage is given in these words :
“ The message is not personal : it’s merely something that she thinks
could be applied to the war and its effect upon conditions.” The
passage is described as “ this quite short sentence ”, and as being
“ not exactly half way down, a little bit lower ”. It is also said
that “ page 98 appeared to her to fall on the right-hand side of the
book It is, I believe, almost invariable that page 1 in a book is
a right-hand page, so that all right-hand pages have odd, not even
numbers ; and in this instance the relevant passage was found at
the fifth line below the middle of the right-hand page 99, facing
page 98. It is an odd fact that among errors in book-tests, a dis-
proportion that seems well above chance consists in significant
passages which are found in the right position on a page, but on the
page facing the one of which the number has been given — the
passage found being thus in actual contact with the place indicated
when the book is closed, as it 2)resumably is when any “ reading ”
or “ sensing ” of its contents occurs for purjjoses of book-tests. The
occurrence can almost be classed as an evidential error, though it
must properly be regarded as halving the odds against a chance
result. These odds, however, are enormously high in respect of the
placing of a passage among a grouj) of books, supposing the relevance
of the passage, when placed, to be satisfactory.

The eighth book from the left proved to be a Spanish translation
of The Scarlet Pimpernel, unread by the ex^oerimenters who had
included it in the row, and the passage identified (and translated)
refers to :

“ . . . the thought of the brave man who, unknown to fame, had
rescued hundreds of lives from a terrible, often an unmerciful fate.”

The terrors of the war, and what would be the spiritual outcome
of the ordeal, had been a subject often referred to by Miss Radclyffe
Hall’s communicator. In view of Feda’s description. Miss Radclyffe
Hall picks out the word “ terrible ” (Spanish horrendo) as having
chief significance, but I think equal emphasis should be laid on the
ideas of courage and of good service to others, in view of what
follows.

Directly after the indication quoted above, Feda says :

“ Now wait a minute, within a span of the test-book — Ladye ^
likes ‘ within a span ’, it ’mooses her ! — there’s a book whose title
gives in quite exact terms what the spirit world knows will come out
of these terrible conditions, it’s exactly right, it wouldn’t have to be
altered in one letter, it’s what they’s all working for, and what they
knows will come out of the IVar.”

' Nickname for the communicator.

44 Kenneth Richmond : Preliminary Studies of [part

The only title found relevant was that of a book two places to the
right of the test-book : Brava Gente (“ Good People ”). There may
be some point in the insistence of the communicator upon the literal
aptness of thisd The association of “ brave man ”, a natural
enough translation of the Spanish “ valoroso jJCfsonaje ”, with the
Italian “ brava ”, which does not directly mean “ brave ”, is acci-
dental ; but where I think the word “ brava ”, not changing a letter,
is of interest, is in the fact that it admirably represents a transition
from the idea of valour to the idea of a courageous tyjre of virtue,
which could well be regarded as a hoped-for outcome of the war.

It will be noticed that in this sitting we again have one book
clearly marked down by position, and another book near to it which
the sitter is led to identify with what appears to be sufficient cause.
After this second indication, Feda went on :

“ And close to that last-mentioned book, so close that she would
almost dare to say it was the next one ” (the experienced Leonard
sitter will suspect that this may be a Feda-dihition of a positive
assertion) “ is a book whose title also gives correctly what she knows
will be given to the world through your work and hers ” (com-
municator’s), “ that is to say that all you and she and Mrs Una ”
(Lady Troubridge) “ and Feda is working for, will result in exactly
what the title of this book says.”

The next book on the right to Brava Gente — as will have been
realised by those who habitually keep figures in their heads — was
La Vita Nuova, the book with the wedding-present and other
associations to which Mrs Salter had apparently been directed in her
book-test of the previous day ; this test not yet having been
verified, and Mrs Salter being still in complete ignorance of what
books would be indicated by it.

If an entirely different trail was, in fact and intentionally, laid
to conduct Miss Iladclyffe Hall to the same book that would be
found by Mrs Salter, it would have occurred to any experienced
communicator, knowing his S.P.R., that the hypothesis of chance-
coincidence had still not been cpiite satisfactorily eliminated. There
are several other considerations to suggest the advisability of
}dacing a third shot on the same mark ; for one, glancing shots
may be either very skilful or quite accidental, and it would help the
case if it were shown that a direct hit could also be made.

Continuing with Miss liadclylfe Hall’s sitting, we have a few
remarks about the titles of books, apparently without significance,
unless to work in a reminder that Dr Verrall is to be taken as co-
operating in the tests. “ You may have to dislodge some of them ”

‘ Cf. Ail' Salter’s comment on a somewhat similar point, p. 49.

146]

the Recorded Leonard Material

(the books) “ in order to see the title. Mr Arthur remarked that
too, she says.” However, I call attention not only to the re-intro-
duction of Dr Verrall, but also to the slightly odd use of the word
“ dislodge ”. With or without exterior intention, it appears to
divert the flow of speech into this channel :

“ Lodge, Lodge, Haymond, that’s their name (sotto voce, Feda’s
remark about Haymond was velly applopliate) ’cos in the eleventh
book going from left to right {sotto voce, Well, what page please ?)
there is on page three foiu:, thirty-four, there is near the lower 2)art
of the page, a message for Raymond’s mother which she’ll under-
stand as it was touched upon in the sitting of Monday. . . . She’ll
understand it and be glad you sent it, the message isn’t from Ray-
mond, she’ll understand if you say that. . . .

“You know, Ladye says it’s so extraordinary, but she has to act
upon Feda sometimes in a way Feda don’t understand when she’s
in the medium, and she was aflaid Feda wouldn’t take up the refer-
ence to Raymond, so she had to worry to get a word that would
suggest Raymond to Feda ; she says she’s done that often and she’s
wondered if you had guessed she was doing that, and how carefully
she has to lead Feda to a new idea. Feda knows that, ’cos when
Feda’s in the medium she’s only got hke half of Feda’s own sense,
she’s not half so clever as when she’s out of the medium ! ”

The eleventh book from the left was La Vita Nuova itself. The
verification of an appropriate passage contains the same evidential
flaw which we noticed in the case of the book in Spanish. The
passage recognised as relevant to Lady Lodge, when the test was
referred to her, occiu's “ near the lower part of the page ” (actually
within the last eight lures), not of page 34, but of the opposite page
35. Translated, it runs as follows :

“ He could not do to you being dead that which, living, he would
never have done to you ; he hes under another sky than yours,
nor must you hope ever to see him, until that day when all your
fellow citizens will be visible to you, and you will be able to see
their faults examined and punished by a Just Judge.

“ Therefore if hatreds, angers and unfriendlinesses cease with
death in whosoever dies, as is beheved ...”

Lady Lodge’s statement reads :

“ The message is understood by M.F.A.L.” (Lady Lodge) “ who
knows from whom it comes.

“ She has reason to think that a certain friend has been trying
for a long time to set her mind at rest. He has since said through
another and mdependent channel that he feels he has accomphshed
that, and is happier in consequence.”

46 Kenneth Richmo'nd : Preliminary Studies of [part

The verification shows relevance rather than points of evidence
that can be put down in black and white ; Feda’s reference to
“ the sitting of Monday ” is, unfortunately, not mentioned ; but
this selection of the book for the third time can be held to show
that a direct hit could be made, so as to settle any question of real
intention to pick out La Vita Nuova. It will be remembered that
the medium’s mind could not, as we can, calculate in either of the
two previous instances that the eleventh book from the left was
being indicated, because in both cases the indirect indications
included the undetermined distance “ within a span ”, which had
to be made definite by something observed by the sitter to be
uniquely appropriate in the titles within that distance. Clear
objective directions, given in all three cases, would have been less
evidential. The third selection of La Vita Nuova is not, however,
supported only by the direct method of indicating the book ;
accepting the occurrence of an intended passage in the right part
of the page opposite to the page indicated (which I think justified
by the evidence in many parallel cases), the passage quoted is very
definitely on the relation between the dead and the living, and is
recognised as appropriate to the annotator to whom it is definitely
referred. Lady Lodge, proving also not to be a “ Raymond ”
message, in agreement with the Feda statement that it is not.

If we look at these three converging references to La Vita Nuova,
put together, and examine the whole subject-matter that is raised
by them to see whether, as a whole, it contains any evidence of
design, we come upon the quite interesting fact that a general con-
cept, “ The New Life ”, is linked by the material with three suc-
cessive views of human progress through time. First, in the material
given and elicited by Mrs Salter’s book-test, a retrospective picture
is formed of the new life that begins with marriage and the severance
of family ties ; and there is presented with this the picture of
another actual change, towards a more free and expressive tech-
nique of automatism, and the “ new life ” of that curious puppet in
the subliminal which most automatists will recognise as having its
strings (and occasionally its leg) pulled by various agencies.

Second, in the book-test given to Miss Radclyffe Hall, the picture
extends from what were present-time conditions in the spring of
1918 — war, and terror overcome by courage — to a prospective hope
of “ a new life ” on this earth for hrava gente ; and this is closely
linked with the thought of new work on the problem of communica-
tion as l:)ringing “ new life ” in a further sense.

It will be noticed that the direction of thought to reminiscence

145]

the Recorded Leonard Material

in the first sitting, and to present and prospective terrestrial life in
the second, could in itself come from the medium’s mind normally,
though without the confirmation and context that are supplied
through book-passages and titles unknown to the medium. In
these episodes it is part of the evidence that pointers should be
given, at the sittings, to past and to present time. But in the third
case, the book-test given to Lady Lodge, no indication is or need be
given at the sitting to locate, as it were, the subject of reference,
and we discover that the book-passage actually found (accepting
the method of finding) constructively extends the sequence leading
from the past to the terrestrial present and future, into the concep-
tion of a discarnate future in which thoughts of judgment and
expiation pass into the thought of hatreds, angers and unfriendli-
nesses ceasing with death.

I should not for one moment say that this constructive appear-
ance of the total product proves design ; the construction might be
partly that of coincidence and partly my own. What I am pointing
out is that it is consistent with design. If a series of three complex
processes, which seem to carry intention throughout and to be dir-
ected to a common end, resulted in an end-product to which no
further element of design and meaning could be attributed, there
would be the less reason to give weight to the whole hypothesis of
intention.

The better I may have succeeded in my attempt to set out this
case clearly, the odder it may have seemed to the reader that
practised investigators such as those concerned at the time did not
observe the triple reference to La Vita Nuova and follow up the
clue. Having the records before me as they were ultimately and
methodically arranged for filing, I myself blundered considerably
through failure to keep clear all the different elements of movement,
time and place that were involved, before I had distinct in my mind
such questions as who went where, did w^hat, and noted it down
when. The actual process of collecting and properly compiling
book-test material requires a concentration on accuracy in detail
during which it is very difficult to step back from a case and look
at it as a whole ; and at the time of these sittings, and later of Mrs
Sidgwick’s Examination of Book-Tests (by which time the elements
of this La Vita Nuova case were in separate files), the whole focus of
attention was upon the success or failure of individual tests, though
the Examination takes note of several apparent cross-correspond-
ences. And, as I have remarked, the investigators were using the
correct amoimt of caution against collaborating too much and so
vitiating future evidence.

48 Kenneth Richmond : Preliminary Studies of [part

Anotlier very natural question is whetlier, if there were design in
this case, there would not be some hint of suljsequent effort by the
designer, after realising that a carefully prepared structure of
evidence had passed unnoticed. To take things in the order in
which they were observed, but not interpreted, by the investigators,
this is what happened next. Mrs Salter’s sitting was on the 23rd,
and Miss Radclj^e Hall’s on the 24th, of April 1918. On the 26th
(a date which will be significant later). Lady Troubridge, Mrs Salter
and Miss Radclyffe Hall met in London and went to Miss Radclyffe
Hall’s flat for the purpose of verifying the book- tests. We must
now jump forward to the next occasion on which Dr Verrall pur-
ported to communicate at a Leonard sitting. This was on May 15th,
1918, Lady Troubridge and Miss Radclyffe Hall being the sitters.
A book-test was given of which the record opens thus : “ Feda
don’t know what Mr Arthur’s come for today. . . . He’s pleased to
come, but he has a funny feehng that someone asked him to come,
or suggested his coming. ...”

It is possible, on our communicator-hypothesis, that the last
words have to do with some committee-work behind Dr Verrall’s
co-operation, the “ funny feeling ” representing a vagueness of
Feda’s. At all events, it is clear that Dr Verrall is supposed to be
somewhat unexpectedly present.

In the ensuing book-test, in which Dr Verrall is specifically said
to be takmg part, though, as usual, the communicator “ Ladye ” is
said to be giving the instructions to Feda, the bookshelf is given as
“ in your room in London ” (Miss Radclyffe Hall’s) “ not the books
in one row, the books in several rows ”. The rest of the instructions,
for the book which is of mterest in our present case, are sufficiently
recapitulated in the following notes by Lady Troubridge on the
verification.

“ She ” (Feda) “ tells us that upon the shelf beneath the highest
shelf of the book-case, a book has been selected by Dr Verrall. This
book is said to be at the end of the row nearly, on the left hand side.
It is said to be a book whose title should be taken as a watchword
by M.R.H., U.V.T., and Mrs Salter. In Dr Verrall’s opinion it is
an excellent watchword, it is something for them all to keep in
front of them, and to know that ‘ in very truth ’ it will be their
watchword. Dr Verrall says through Feda that they will under-
stand why this will be their watchword, and that it is all linked up
with the work which they are doing.

“ On the extreme left hand side of that shelf, being in fact the
third book from the left, was a book entitled Nova SolymaN

It is explained that Nova Solyma — New Jerusalem — together with

145]

the Recorded Leonard Material

the content and meaning of the book, conveys an idea of lieautiful
order which tlie annotators find relevant as a “ watchword ” for
their work in psychical research. It may occur to us, with our
present knowledge, that there is a reiterated attem])t to draw atten-
tion to the words. The phrases summarised by Lady Troubridge
include : “ What’s a watchword ? Keeping time ? No it isn’t, he
says ” ; and later the actual phrasing is “ in very truth it will Ire
your watchword, he says you’ll understand why ; it’s all linked up
with the work that you’re doing I suggest only that this may
be an attempt to get the verifiers and Mrs Salter to associate from
Nova Solyma back to La Vita Nuova, and to ask themselves where
and how La Vita Nuova had occurred in their work. If so, the
attempt nearly had its effect, for Lady Troubridge has a later note
in the records coimectmg Nova Solyma wdth the occurrence of La
Vita Nuova in Miss Radclyffe Hall’s sitting. But Mrs Salter’s
record about La Vita Nuova was in her own safe keeping, and the
third case sent to Lady Lodge was not remembered.

After this present paper was in typescript Mr W. H. Salter saw it,
and raised a point which was unknown to me, about the very special
interest taken by Dr Verrall, as a scholar, in the truth of words to
their etymological meanings. Dr Verrall had made it clear’^ that in
the Greek dramatists a word or name is given significance as being
impressively “ true ” to a given context or situation because of a
double meaning which it bears by derivation. What in modern
English would seem a mere play upon words, and in Shakespeare
supphes a type of punning which to us appears strained and labori-
ous, was to the Greek mind a part of the magic of words, so that
coincidences of derived nieanhig could make the application of a
word especially “ true ” (eVapo?). In this connexion, Mr Salter points
to the use by the Verrall communicator of the words “ in very truth ”
and their application to the book’s title. (The reader may have
shared my own feeling that the use of this phrase was curious, and
called for some explanation.) Mr Salter remarks that if this par-
ticular idea of “ truth ” in derived meaning was intended by
Leonard-Verrall, “ the point is the etymological significance of
Solyma = Salem = Peace. Very possibly Mrs Leonard knew that
equation. By clairvoyance, if that faculty is to be admitted, she
might be able to give the location of a book with that title, but she
could not possibly know the special significance of the words “ in
very truth ” for her communicator, excejrt as the result of some
further faculty of supernormal cognition.”

* Notably, as Mr Salter points out, in a long appendix on the use of ^ru/xos
and eT-qTVfxoi, which occurs in Dr Verrall’s edition of The Seven Against Thebes.

50 Kenneth Richmond : Preliminary Studies of [part

It seems to me that this characteristic point about Dr Verrall’s
sensitivity to words adds to the ajjpropriateness of Nova Solyrna in
the whole context in which La Vita Nuova was given at Miss Kad-
clyffe Hall’s sitting of May 24th, 1918, with its transition from war to
an outcome in terms of human and spiritual values ; and in com-
menting upon that sitting I have referred (without knowing when
I wrote of Dr. Verrall’s special attitude towards derivative mean-
ings) to the possibihty of a derivative interpretation of the title
Brava Gente 44), considering the insistence at the sitting upon
“ quite exact terms It struck me that a philological point was
involved, and I had in mind (and introduced into my phrasing) the
parallel association of virtus, valour, with virtue. It can be worth
while to explore these rather fine-spun contexts, when the process
consists in making sure that a broad structure of evidence does not
show poverty when it is followed up into its finer details.

Following upon the “ in very truth ” passage in the sitting, we
have this :

“ (sotto voce. You know that in forming a bridge . . . the bridge
builders) — no, you haven’t got it right, it’s that he thinks of you as
the bridge builders. . . . He says bridges can’t be builted from one
side only. ...”

This passage led on to a book-test which caused the verifiers to
note a number of references to Kij)ling (whose story called “ The
Bridge-Builders ” will be remembered), and to discover from Mrs
Salter that an interest in Kijding’s work was characteristic of Dr
Verrall. The book-test was evidential, and was taken from Captains
Courageous, which somewhat echoes the theme of bravery, but its
details would take us somewhat far afield. It served the function
of emphasising “ bridge-1 )uilding ” in an evidential association with
Dr Verrall, with a possible intention which we shall observe in a
moment.

It will l)e recalled that in the sitting with which we are now deal-
ing (May 15, 1918), the first l)ook-test opened with the introduction
of Dr Verrall and the question of his reason for coming. The way
in which this was put puzzled the investigators, and Lady Trou-
bridge notes that in another part of the sitting Feda said :

“ Do you know if Mrs Nellie’s been anywhere 1 ” (This means
Mrs Salter.) And again, “ Feda feels it’s something to do with Mrs
Nellie, and that’s perhaps what Ijrought Mr Arthur here as well as
the book-test.”

Lady Troubridge’s notes (slightly paraphrased) record the next
procedure :

“ On Friday May 24th, 1918, Miss Radclyffe Hall wrote to Mrs

145]

the Recorded Leonard Material

Salter, enclosing the notes of the sitting and asking her if she could
throw any hght on that part of the test concerning her. On May
27th, 1918, Miss Radclyffe Hall and I called on Mrs Salter at the
S.P.R., when Mrs Salter handed us her answer to the letter, which
I she had not yet posted. The chief interest hes in the fact that on
April 27th, 1918, Mrs Salter herself had produced a piece of automa-
tic script. It was the only piece of script produced by her between
February 15th, 1918, and May 23rd, 1918, and that script opens
with these words :

The bridge and the river . . . Misericordiam Domini.”

Now !Mrs Salter had the impulse to write this script on April 27th,
the day after she had met Lady Troubridge and Miss Radclyffe Hall
and they had failed to associate the three separate references to La
; TTYa Mwora with one another. I am inclined to think that' the sense
of Misericordiam Domini ” might appropriately be brought out
by an exclamation mark.

The “ bridge ” references led Mrs Salter to look up a much older
script of hers (Feb. 24th, 1916), containing the words “ An arch and
a bridge over a river . . . not the bridge of sighs, but it is a real
bridge ... a triple arch ”.

This was written in other circumstances, but the fact that i\Ir3
Salter, an automatist, found herself associating it with the more
recent script may have relevance. “ Triple arch ” certainly aroused
associations in Lady Troubridge’s mind with a curious point about
I the sitting at which, apparently by Dr Verrall’s instigation, all this
had arisen. I quote again from her notes :

“ Note the words, ‘ A triple arch ’, as having a possible bearing
on this book-test of May 15th, 1918. Three figures rather conspicu-
ously in a part of the test. M.V.B.” (“ Ladye ” in Feda’s nomen-
clature) “ and Dr VerraU make reference to three of Kipling’s works.
Dr VerraU selects three people as his bridge-builders, namely Mrs
Salter, M.R.H., and U.V.T. In Kiphng’s story, ‘ The Bridge-
BuUders ’, there are three, and only three, principal characters,

' namely the chief engineer, his young assistant, and their faithful
native foreman. ...”

It woidd perhaps have been less interesting if the three references
to La Vita Nuova had been observed and put together before these
words were written. The recurrent threes in the material, if they
had been noticed after the fact of the triple reference to La Vita
' Nuova, might have suggested coincidence-hunting. But when this
fact of the recurrent threes is noticed as a curious and insistent
phenomenon in a VerraU communication, and left practically un-
explained, because the fact to which this insistence could be a

Kenneth Richmond

[part 145]

pointer has remained hidden, we seem to have intention observed,
so to speak, in the air, the observer liaving no point of attachment
for it but still emphatically feeling it to l^e significant.

It may be noted that eleven years later, Aug. 2nd, 1929, the Rev.
Ah S. Irving was given a group of l)ook-tests from books in Mr
Salter’s house at Newport, Dr Verrall being said to co-operate with
the late Mrs Irving in producing the tests. Among the indications
at Mr Irving’s sitting with Mrs Leonard (of which an excellent
verbatim record is on file) was a reference to christening and babies,
related to a Ijook which Mr Salter identified in his shelves as another
copy of La Vita Ntiova — Messrs. Kegan Paul’s small edition (1903)
entitled The New Life, with Itahan text and English translation on
alternate pages. The editor and translator was Dr Luigi Ricci, and
the fly-leaf of this copy bears an inscription with Dr Ricci’s signature
jiaying homage to Dr Verrall as a cidtore of Italian literature. The
allusion was without significance for Mr Irving, but could well be
taken as a personal touch introduced for the benefit of Mr and Mrs
Salter, who were then awaiting the birth of their second child.
They had had previous evidential references to the coming birth of
both their children through Mrs Leonard, ])urporting to be given
by Dr. Verrall. This “ new life ” reference was not stringently
evidential, and was more in the nature of an appropriate by-product
of the Irving material ; but again, it would have lessened the whole
case for intention in connexion with Dr Verrall and La Vita Nnova
if the allusion had l)een quite out of context with the material given
eleven years before. As it is, Mrs Salter is first referred to “ new
life ” in connexion with her marriage, and then again in connexion
with the birth of a child, the construction of a book-test for an
independent sitter providing the 0] )port unity to give some evidential
value to the latter reference.

Here, so far as I have observed in the records, the evidence in
the “ La Vita Nuova ” case ends. If I were to give further rein to
speculation, I should wonder whether it was thought after the “ Nova
Solyma ” attenqit that further efforts would be unavailing to bring
its separated components, now rapidly liecoming overlaid with
new material of interest, together again ; or whether perhaps it was
foreseen, in the fuller prescience which we are told is possessed by
the discarnate, tliat the records would in diie time l)e assembled,
and that later still their connexion would be observed by some in-
vestigator undistracted by the rush and pressure of ever-fresh cases
to be noted, annotated, and put in order for the service of research.

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Society tor Psychical Research

PART 146

MRS HENRY SIDGWICK’S WORK IN PSYCHICAL

RESEARCH

By Alice Johnson

Eleanor Mildred Sidgwick was tlie daughter of James Maitland
Balfour, of Whittingehame, Prestonkirk, East Lothian, and Lady
Blanche Balfour, daughter of the second Marquis of Salisbury. She
was born in 1845, the eldest of a family of three daughters and five
sons. From an early age she showed a special aptitude for mathe-
matics, which she studied first under the village schoolmaster at
Whittingehame, and later with the help of her brother-in-law. Lord
Rayleigh. While he was Professor of Experimental Physics at
Cambridge, 1879-1884, he was pursuing his researches on Electrical
Measurements, in which work he had the assistance of Mrs Sidgwick,
and with her carried out his classical measurements on the Silver
Voltameter and the Latimer Clark Cell, thus establishing definitely
the units of resistance, current and electromotive force. They pub-
hshed three papers jointly in the Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society.

Lord Rayleigh, like other great English physicists of that period,
habitually employed the simplest form of apparatus, making use of
whatever came nearest to hand, and yet obtaining results of sur-
prising accuracy, which were only further substantiated by more
elaborate research.

Mrs Sidgwick had the same preference for the simplest kind of
apparatus for whatever work^ she was engaged in ; although inter-
ested in all mechanical devices, she was never tempted to become
so far interested in perfecting them as to lose sight of the ends they
were intended to serve.

^ This was also characteristic of her brother, F. M. Balfour, in his biological
work.

54 Alice Jolmson : Airs Henry Sidgundc’ s [part

Like other nienil)ers of lier family, she took a keen interest in
science generally. But she once remarked to me that mathematics
es})ecially a])2)ealcd to her in early youtli because she thought a
future life would be much more worth living if it included intellectual
])ursuits, and I imagine tlie abstract nature of pure mathematics
seemed to her specially adapted to a disembodied existence.

The last important paper contributed by Mrs Sidgwick to the
Proceedings (written at the age of eighty-seven) was the History of
the S.P.K., compiled for the Society’s Jubilee in 1932, and published
in voh xli. This article must, I think, have seemed to older mem-
bers not unlike the tragedy of Hamlet with the Prince of Denmark
left out, for there is hardly anything in it about her own share in the
history, beyond the general statement that she was cognisant from
the beginning of what was in the minds of the founders of the Society
and was herself in the inner circle of workers.

The present paj^er attempts to redress the balance. Yet it is
ini])ossible to draw the line between work done by Mrs Sidgwick
alone and that done in co-operation with others — especially, of
course, with her husband. Though their capacities and tempera-
ments were in many respects dissimilar, the comradeship between
them was so profound and far-reaching that I venture to quote
below some passages from his writings — for he was always readier of
ex])ression than she — to throw light on her attitude and her doings.

Henry Sidgwick, her elder by seven years, had naturally been
interested in the subject the earlier of the two. In his first Presi-
dential Address in 1882 he says that his interest dated back for
nearly twenty years — i.e. to the time when he was a young man of
aljout twenty-four, already engrossed in the problems of rehgion and
])hilosophy which dominated his life, and already perceiving the
intimate bearing of psychical research on them.

Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism

Some ten years later, the experiments of Crookes with D. D.
Home, though generally ignored by men of science, roused keen
interest in a few who were sufficiently open-minded to recognise in
them a prima facie case for investigation ; and Sidgwick with several
of his friends had sittings with mediums who were reported to
possess telekinetic powers. The then popular estimate of the subject
is shown in a letter he wrote to Myers after some experiments at
Newcastle in which Hensleigh Wedgwood (cousin and brother-in-law
of Charles Darwin) took part ; “ Wedgwood is sincerely concerned
about our proposed seances at Cambridge. He thinks the Master

140]

Work in Psychical Pesearcli

[of Trinity] would be sustained by public opinion if he dismissed
me ! So there is yet a chance of one’s |)Osing as Galileo.”

Sittings were also held in Loudon, in the houses of Sidgwick’s
friend and former pupil A. J. Balfour, and of Lord Bayleigh. Miss
Balfour (who married Henry Sidgwick in 1876) was then keeping
house for her brother, and so came to join the circle in 1874, and
showed at once her aptitude for the investigation. She brought to
it the indefatigable patience and perseverance that such work
requires ; she was a keen observer and ingenious in devising simjile
and effective tests. She learnt much about conjuring, and was an
adept in detecting tricks and codes. (When in later life she read
detective stories, she lost interest in them at an early stage, because
she generally guessed the solution of the mystery at the first hints
given.)

In her paj^er, written in 1886, on “ The Physical Phenomena of
Spiritualism ” {Proc., vol. iv, pp. 46 ff.) she says that she well re-
members her first sitting in 1874, “ on account of the interest excited
by the idea that, notwithstanding the very inconclusive character
of the phenomena that occurred, we might possibly be communicat-
ing with beings belonging to another world.” The possibilities of
fraud, illusion and mal-observation are discussed ; but in spite of
much definite proof of trickery and little evidence for anything
genuine having been obtained, she ends characteristically :

“It is not because I disbelieve in the physical phenomena of
spiritualism, but because I at present think it more probable than
not that such things occasionally occur that I am interested in
estimating the evidence for them. I feel bound, however, to admit
that by far the larger part of the testimony put forward as affording
solid ground for a belief in them which I have been able to examine
is of such a nature as to justify the contempt with which scientific
men generally regard it. . . . If what I have written should contri-
bute, in however small a degree, to the improvement of the evidence
on this subject in the future, I shall feel that it has not been written
in vain.”

The open-mindedness of this conclusion did not save the paper
from vehement attacks in the spiritualistic papers, and there was
much discussion, in which both the Sidgwicks took part, in vols. ii
and iii of the Journal.

At about this time the classical researches of Hodgson and Davey
into the possibilities of mal-observation and laj)se of memory were
being carried on. In particular they showed that continuous obser-
vation was a practical impossibility, so that evidence which de-
pended solely on watching the medium was always unreliable.

Alice Johnson : Mrs Henry SirlgwicFs [part

Davey was an amateur conjurer of extraordinary skill in imitating
so-called “ sjuritistic ” ])licnomena, such as “ slate- writing,” sup-
posed to be ])i'oduced on the inner surfaces of two slates fastened
together. Unfortunately, he died of typhoid fever at the age of
twenty-seven, in Decemlier 1890. Mrs Sidgwick was thoroughly
conversant with all this work (for which see Proc., vols. iv and viii),
and often referred to it in her writings.

The Question of Fraudulent Mediums

One question in dis])ute with the spiritualists was whether further
experiments should l^e tried witli mediums who had been convicted
of fraud. On this jjoint Henry Sidgwick took a strong line. He
.says {Proc., vol. iv, p. 101) :

“If it had occurred to me when I addressed the Society four
years ago that we should be seriously urged to investigate the
performances of ‘ mediums ’ whose trickery was proved and
admitted, I should certainly have repudiated the suggestion with
all the emphasis that I could command. But I then believed — ■
and ventured to say — that spiritualists had been impressed by the
‘ evidence accumulated in recent years to show that at least a
great ])art of the extraordinary ]:>henoniena referred to spiritual
agency in England and America are really due to trickery and
fraud of some land.’ I hoped, therefore, that educated spiritual-
ists would generally agree with me in condemning what I called
‘ the obstinacy with which mediums against whom fraud has been
proved have been afterwards defended,’ and in regretting that
such persons should, as I said, ‘ have been able to go on with their
trade after exposure no less than before.’ I never thought that
we should be called upon to give direct encouragement to this
trade by undertaking a formal investigation of the ‘ jdienomena ’
exhibited by such persons.”

[Op. cit., p. 105) :

“ I should certainly not [put forward results obtained under satis-
factory conditions] as evidence if I knew the supjjosed medium to
be a detected impostor. Nor should I seek evidence from such
tainted sources — not because I hold that evidence involving trick-
sters cannot be raised to a pitch that would exclude explanation
by trickery, except on the supposition of the investigator’s
idiocy ; but because an extended experience has led me to regard
the chance of its being so raised as too shght to counterbalance
the palpable evil of encouraging an unmoral trade.”

146]

Work in Psychical Research

Sidgwick’s arguments on this point convinced his colleagues, and
the Council agreed that the money of the Society should not be spent
either on investigations of mediums who had once been clearly
detected in fraud, or in printing reports of such investigations. This
principle was adhered to throughout Sidgwick’s life-time, and was
adopted by Myers in selecting his material for Human Personality.

I lay stress on the point, because I think the attitude of the Sidgwicks
on it has often been mismulerstood. They never maintained that
because a medium had cheated once, none of his j)erforniances could
be genuine. But they condemned the tacit encouragement given by
the majority of spirituahsts at that time to fraudulent mediums,
who knew that no exposure would prevent their continuing to drive
a prohtable trade ; and the consequent discouragement of honest
amateurs, who might object to be classed in the same category with
the disreputable professional.

Foundation of the Society

To resume the chronological sequence : their repeated failures to
obtain positive results from “ physical ” mediums had somewhat
discouraged the investigators, when their hopes were revived by the
successful experiments in thought-transference carried out by
Barrett, with the help of Gurney, Myers and others, in 1881 and
1882, which led to the foundation of the S.P.R. in 1882. This was
an event of the greatest interest to the Sidgwicks and they did
their utmost for the success of the new venture. Not only did
they contribute generously to its funds at different periods, both
for special and for general purposes ; the time and labour they
gave to it were unstinted. Henry Sidgwick was elected the first
President ; every attempt was made to enlist siqoporters of all
shades of opinion, and there were several leading spiritualists on the
first Council — e.g. C. C. Massey, Stainton Moses, Dawson Rogers
and Hensleigh M^edgwood. Though these members dropped off
one by one, on account of the stringency of evidence demanded by
the majority of their colleagues, Massey and Wedgwood, who were
personal friends of the Sidgwicks, remained on terms of intimacy
with them.

The study of Telepathy now became the principal, though by no
means the sole, work of the Society, and we loiow that it is in this
field — using the word Telepathy in its widest connotation — that our
most important positive results have been obtained.

58 Alice Johnson : Mi's Henry Sidgwich’s [part

Phantasms of the Living

Tliis book embodied the results of the first few years’ work ; begun
in 1883, it was published in two bulky volumes in 1886 under the
names of Myers, Gurney and Podmore. Both the Sidgwicks took a
large share in the work ; they corresponded with informants, inter-
viewed witnesses, and were consulted at every stage by the authors.
Mrs Sidgwick also sj)ent much time and labour over the proof-
reading.

The book deals exhaustively with the subject of Hallucination,
distinguishing between the subjective type, which originates in the
mind of the percipient, and the veridical type, containing an element
due to that influence from without, operating otherwise than through
the known sense channels, for which Myers had coined the word
Telepathy. A Veridical Hallucination is deceptive in that it suggests
the presence of a material object where it is not, but truth-telhng in
being coincident with a real event connected with the appearance,
such as an apparition seen at the time of death of the person repre-
sented.

For the first time canons of evidence were formulated, applicable
to a miscellaneous field of unusual phenomena, hitherto the haj^py
hunting ground of cranks. The writers set forth the principles on
which reports should be accepted or rejected. Included is an inter-
esting “ Note on Witchcraft ” by Gurney, which forms a complete
treatise on the subject, showing that some narratives are based on
mere hearsay and others on substantial evidence, the latter being
generally exjjficable by known causes, such as hysteria or suggestion.

Phantasms of the Dead

The first important paper in the Proceedings pubhshed under Mrs
Sidgwick’s own name was in vol. iii (1885) on “ Phantasms of the
Head.” These are defined as “ all kinds of imj>ressions on human
minds which there seems any reason to refer to the action, in some
way or other, of deceased jjersous.” The material consisted of about
37U narratives — chosen out of a much larger number — mostly of
apparitions, but excluding apparitions seen at the moment of death,
or a tew hours after, since these were classed with “ Phantasms of
the Living,” as possibly due to tclepatliy, instantaneous or deferred,
from a living person.

Mrs Sidgwick gives reasons for holding that most of the cases
afforded little or no evidence for the action of the dead. Enquirers
are probably more aware now than they were then of what consti-

146]

Work in Psychical Research

tutes good evidence ; yet mucli of the criticism then j^ut forward
might still be found useful. The rest of the cases, though they did
not suggest any satisfactory theory about communication with the
dead and were far from proving its possibility, yet seemed to merit
serious consideration. She observes that no single case, however
remarkable, could prove conclusively the agency of the dead ; only
the cumulative effect of much good evidence could justify behef
in it.

Report on Theosophy

In the same vol. (iii, pp. 382 ff.) is the “ Report of the Committee
on Theosophical Phenomena,” of which Mrs Sidgwick was a member.
The Theosophical Society was founded in New York in 1875 by
Colonel Olcott and Mme Blavatsky. Mine Blavatsky came to
Cambridge in 1884, was present at a meeting of the Cambridge
Branch of the S.P.R. and produced a favourable impression on the
leading members. She maintained the existence in Thibet of a
Brotherhood with occult powers, of whom she herself was a Chela
or disciple. These Brothers (Adepts or Mahatmas) were alleged to
be able to cause “ astral forms ” of themselves to appear at a dis-
tance and to transport material objects, especially letters, super-
normally wherever they chose. Hodgson was sent out to the head-
quarters of the Society in India in November 1884 to collect and
investigate evidence for its claims, and returned in April 1885. The
Repqrt of the Committee w’as based to a large extent, but not ex-
clusively, on his investigations, which resulted in the exposure of
Mme Blavatsky.

Some of the evidence for fraud was furnished by Mme Coulomb, a
former confederate of Mme Blavatsky’s, who turned informer ; but
her statements were checked and a large number of other witnesses
were examined by Hodgson. He investigated the “ Occult Room ”
where “ phenomena ” occurred, and found there confirmatory signs
of the apparatus that had been described to him, and which had been
dismantled and destroyed before his visit. It consisted of a “ Shrine”
placed against a wall, on the other side of which was Mme Blavatsky’s
bedroom. The shrine had a sliding panel at the back, opening into
a recess in the wall, which communicated with the bedroom through
another opening, and presumably the objects found in the shrine
were passed through this channel.

It also appeared that the handwriting of the occult letters had a
striking resemblance to the undoubted handwriting of Mme Blavat-
sky. Mrs Sidgwick made a minute analysis of the resemblances, and
a handwriting expert to whom the documents were submitted agreed

Alice Johnson : Mrs Henry Sidgiviclc’s [part

with her opinion that Mine Blavatsky had forged the letters. The
resemblances are shown in facsimiles given in the Report.

“ Spiritualism ” in the EncyclopcBclia Britannica

At about this time (1885-86) Mrs Sidgwick wrote a concise but
comprehensive history of Spiritualism for the Ninth Edition (1875-
1889) of the EncydopcBdia Britannica, the volume containing her
article being published in 1887. The article deals with what is called
“ Modern Spiritualism,” the movement which started in America in
1848 with the “ spirit rappings ” of the Fox family by which com-
munications from the dead were suj^jiosed to be received. The
movement spread from America over many European countries ;
Mrs Hayden brought “ Table-turning ” from Boston in 1852 and
D. 1). Home came in 1855. Trance-speaking, both in private and
public, became very common, and sometimes information unknown
to the medium was given, which might be due to the action of other
minds on his. But as the trance-sjieakers were supposed to be in-
spired to utter rehgious truths, spirituahsm became a religious move-
ment. This development became marked first at Keighley in York-
shire in 1855, being especially prevalent among miners in the north.
By 1885 there were two weekly newspapers. Light and The Medium
and Daybreak, which advertised weekly meetings.

The phenomena were of two classes : (a) the physical, such as
raps, movements of objects without contact, fights, materialisations,
“ direct ” writing, and spirit photography ; and (6) the much com-
moner automatic type, such as trance-speaking or writing admitted
to be performed by the medium’s own organism, but alleged to be
due to spirits controlling the organism.

In the first class fraud was frec|uently discovered ; thus, it was
found that the Fox sisters produced raps with their knee and other
joints ; and the phenomena rarely occurred under conditions even
intended to prevent fraud, while in experiments carried out appar-
ently in a scientific spirit, the records are hardly ever precise enough
to show that fraud could not have been present.

Reference is made to the striking parallelism between the pro-
ceedings of modern seances and those connected with the later G-reek
oracles, as described by Myers in his Essays : Classical in 1883.

The article gives a very full bibliography of the whole subject, but
the S.P.R. is mentioned only once, in a footnote.

14G]

Work in Psychical Research

Premonitions

Mrs Sidgwick’s paper on “ Premonitions ” in vol. v (1888) was
based on cases received up to that date. Though mainly negative in
its conclusions it was useful in showing what explanations had to be
ehminated before behef in a premonitory faculty could be accepted,
thus paving the way for future work.

Sidgwick commented on it in his journal (June 1, 1888) : ^

“ S.P.R. meeting and Nora’s paper on Premonitions. PajJer dilfi-
cult to write because she does not beheve in them, and yet we fear
that too negative an attitude would prevent our getting the full
sujjply of fresh stories which we want to complete our telepathic
evidence, the simple minds of oim audience not distinguishing be-
tween telepathy and premonitions. I thought she succeeded toler-
ably well, but Gurney thought she erred on the side of too great
indulgence to weak evidence.”

Henry Sidywick’s attitude as a Philosopher to Psychical

Research

I insert here some jjassages illustrating Sidgwick’s general attitude,
as a philosopher, to the work :

(Written in 1886) ; - “ I think [the S.P.R. ] has done good work,
as I do not doubt that thought-transference is genuine and hoj^e
it will soon be established beyond cavil ; but I see no prospect of
making way in the far more interesting investigation of spiritual-
ism. I fear our experience shows that evidence available for
scientific purposes is not hkely to be forthcoming ; still, having
put our hands to plough this bog, it would be feeble to look back
so soon.”

(Written in 1887) ; ^ “ I have been facing the fact that I am
drifting slowly to the conclusion . . . that we have not, and are
never lilrely to have, empirical evidence of the existence of the
individual after death. Soon therefore it will probably be my duty
as a reasonable being — and especially as a professional philoso-
pher— to consider on what basis the human individual ought to
construct his life under these circumstances. Some fifteen years
ago, when I was writing my book on Ethics, I was inclined to hold
with Kant that we must postulate the continued existence of the

1 Memoir of Henry Sidgwick, p. 489.

“ Memoir, p. 435.

^ Op. cit., pp. 4GG-4()7.

62 Alice Johnson : Mrs Henry SidgwicUs [part

soul, in order to effect that harmony of Duty with Happiness
which seemed to me indispensable to rational moral life. At any
rate, I thought I might provisionally postulate it, while setting
out on the serious search for empirical evidence. If I decide that
this search is a failure, shall I finally and decisively make this
postulate ? Can 1 consistently with my whole view of truth and
the method of its attainment ? And, if I answer ‘ no ’ to each of
these questions, have I any ethical system at all ? And if not,
can I continue to be Professor and absorb myself in the mere
erudition of the subject ? . . . I have mixed up the personal and
general questions because every speculation of this kind ends, with
me, in a practical problem : ‘ What is to be done here and now ? ’
That is a question which I must answer ; whereas as to the riddle
of the Universe — I never had the presumption to hope that its
solution was reserved for me, though I had to try.”

A little later {op. cit., p. 468) he speaks of ;

“ my final despair of obtaining — I mean my obtaining, for I do
not yet despair as regards the human race — any adequate rational
ground for beheving in the immortality of the soul.”

He discusses the question more at length, and concludes {op. cit.,
p. 473) :

“ It is premature to despair, and I am quite content to go on
seeking while life lasts ; that is not the perplexing problem ; the
cjuestion is whether to profess Ethics without a basis.”

Mrs Sidywick’s Editorship

Not long after these words were written, the sudden death of
Gurney, the colleague with whom the Sidgwicks had most in common,
laid fresh burdens on the survivors who had valued his work so
highly and wi,shed to make up as fiir as possible to the Society for
his loss.

Among otlier departments, tliis affected the editing. No regular
Editor was appointed when the Society was founded, the necessary
work being done by the Literary Committee. The Journal (privately
printed for circulation among Meml)ers and Associates) was started
at the beginning of 1884 and Barrett was elected its Editor. After
a year, he gave up the work and Sidgwick consented to take it. In
the following year (1886) Gurney took it over. When Gurney died
in 1888, Sidgwick was made Editor of both Proceedings and Journal.
This meant that Mrs Sidgwick did practically all the work of editing,
— of course in consultation with him — while articles in the Proceed-
ings w'ere, before publication, submitted to the Committee of Refer-

146]

Work in Psychical Research

ence. From about 1890, when I became lier secretary, I acted as her
assistant till July 1897, when Hodgson was made Editor. In June
1899 he resigned and I was appointed in his place, with the great
advantage of having been trained by Mrs Sidgwick in the work.

She was scrupulous in her treatment of documents printed in the
Journal, however unimportant, showing precisely how far they were
printed verbatim and where editorial modifications were introduced.
Connecting sentences, if written on the MS., would be erased after-
wards, and the papers put together and docketted. The collation
of proofs with originals was gone through thoroughly at least once,
and often twice ; and the proofs were generally read at least three
times. She also had to select matter for printing in the J ournal and
arrange what varieties of tyjje should be used, and made herself
responsible for the proof-reading of the Proceedings.

The Brighton Experiments

Mrs Sidgwick’s next important piece of work was the series of
experiments in Thought-transference carried out during the four
months July-October 1889 at Brighton with four different percipients
in the hypnotic state, Mr G. A. Smith, the hypnotist, being the agent.

G. A. Smith was a young man with a great natural skill in hyp-
notism, who used to give public entertainments at Brighton, of a
kind common in those days, showing the effects of verbal suggestion.
Gurney having witnessed these secured his help for his own experi-
ments. He gradually became Gurney’s assistant and secretary in
psychical work and made himself very useful and efficient. He
found the subjects for experiment ; but though the Sidgwicks
believed him to be quite trustworthy, they exercised the same vigil-
ance that they would have done in any case, since it is of course
unconscious indications, either given or received, that must es]3eci-
ally be guarded against in such experiments. The report of them
was published in Proceedings, vol. vi, pp. 128 ff. It describes in
detail the precautions taken to guard against many possible sources
of error and shows that the success obtained was considerably
beyond chance.

A second series of these experiments was carried out at Brighton
from January 1890- July 1891, and the report published in Pro-
ceedings, vol. viii, pp. 536 if. They included the thought-transfer-
ence of numbers and of mental pictures and the production of local
anaesthesia by mental suggestion, a kind of experiment that had
been initiated by Gurney. As her assistant in this series, I was
impressed by her imwearying patience through a long sequence of

G4 Alice Johnson : Airs Henry Sidgwick’s [part

tedious experiments ; she never seemed to relax her efforts, and
never seemed bored. She treated all the persons concerned with the
utmost consideration — one might almost say respect — as if they
were human beings, not mere sul)jects for experiment, and they all
became much attached to her and liked to talk to her in the intervals
about their own affairs. I remarked how different was the atmos-
phere on a few occasions when one or other of her helpers was in
charge. Though the subjects knew that careful precautions were
being taken against fraud, I believe that none of them ever resented
it.

Clairvoyance

In 1891 (vol. vii) appeared a paper on “ The Evidence for Clair-
voyance,” defined as “ a faculty of acquiring supernormally, but
not by reading the minds of persons present, a knowledge of facts
such as we normally acquire by the use of our senses.” The term
is not limited “ to a knowledge of present facts. A similar knowledge
of past and, if necessary, future facts may be included.” “ The
subject . . . divides itself into two main parts — clairvoyant know-
ledge of facts which are known to some one somewhere . . . and
clairvoyant knowledge of facts which are unknown to any one in
the world, such as a number drawn at random from a bag and not
looked at.”

The paper deals only with cases of the first type, which it is of
course difficult to distinguish from telepathy, and indeed it is sug-
gested that clairvoyance may be facilitated if it is led up to by tele-
pathy, and that actually it may not be possible to draw the line
between it and telepathy. Of the second type of cases, there was
then little or no good evidence (though successful dowsing might
probably be explained as due to clairvoyance, in so far as it cannot
be attributed to the influence of the dowser’s subliminal perception
of surface indications of underground water on the movements of
the rod).

Spirit Photography

A paper on ” Spirit Photography : a Reply to Mr A. R. Wallace ”
appeared in vol. vii, pp. 268 ff. Much of the material used in it had
been collected by Mrs tSidgwick in 1885-1886, for her article on
“ Spirituahsm ” in the Encydo'peedia Britannica, though it had not
been used in that article. She had not brought it before the Society
earher, because her conclusions were chiefly negative. But in 1891
Wallace had pul)hshed a paper on “ Objective Apparitions,” main-

146]

Work in Psychical Research

taining tliat Spirit jihotographs afforded the most complete and
crucial test as to the subjectivity or objectivity of apparitions and
that the S.P.R. had completely ignored the evidence for it, which he
thought superior to any that they had collected for any supernormal
phenomena. In reply to this challenge, Mrs Sidgwick published her
examination of the evidence dealing with the most famous spirit
photographers of the period, most of them being professionals, who
made money out of it, such as Mumler in America, Hudson and
Parkes in London, and Buguet in Paris. Of these, Munder, Hudson
and Buguet had been clearly convicted of fraud. Parkes produced
photographs of very suspicious appearance, but gave investigators
little opportunity of examining the methods by which he produced
them, so that there was no evidence of their genuineness. She points
out that the mere fact that trickery has not been discovered is not
enough to establish genuineness ; also that the evidence of recog-
nition, on which spiritualists chiefly relied, is very dubious. She
quotes from Stainton Moses, himself a convinced spiritualist {op.
cit., p. 277) : “ Some people would recognise anything. A broom
and a sheet are quite sufiicient to make up a grandmother for some
wild enthusiasts. ... I have had pictures that might be anything
in tliis or any other world sent to me and gravely claimed as recog-
nised portraits ; palpable old women authenticated as ‘ my spirit
brother dead seventeen years, as he would have been if he had,’ etc.”
(From my own experience, I should say that this is no exaggeration.)
Various methods of fake photography are described, and tricks of
substituting one plate for another.

Principalship of Newnham College

In 1892, on the death of Miss Clough, the first Principal of Newn-
ham College, Mrs Sidgwick was urgently invited to succeed her. She
had been for many years on the Council and on a number of Com-
mittees and was also Treasurer from 1876 to 1919. She remained
for the rest of her life a member of the Council, and never slackened
in her devotion to the College. For two years, 1880-1882, she had
been Vice-Principal, when she and her husband had lived in limited
quarters in Newnham and now again they consented to give up their
own home for the sake of the College, which owed its existence
mainly to Henry Sidgwick.

The reasons which led to their consent are best given in his words
{Memoir, p. 514) :

“ We have been engaged in anxiously deliberating whether to

do what the Newnham College Council unanimously wish and

Alice Johnson : Mrs Henry Sirlgivich’s [part

agree that Nora shall take the office of Princi])al of Newnham
College. The die is cast and she has written to accept. ... It
was dillicult to refuse ; and if I am — as 1 still am — doubtful
whether she has done right in accepting, it is almost solely on
account of the S.P.E. . . . We could not resist the unanimous
wish of the Council, and of course it is a great pleasure to us (while
at the same time it increases the sense of responsibility and diffi-
cult duty of ‘ coming up to the mark ’) to find that the staff and
the students are pleased. What we feel most strongly is that
after Miss Clough’s death it is the duty of all who have given their
minds to Newnham to ‘ close ranks ’ and take the ])lace that others,
moved by the same interest, assign to one. We hope it will be
for the good of the College.”

{op. cit., p. 522) :

“ (May 2, 1892) On Saturday Nora was made Principal of
Newnham, and to-day she is dining for the first time as Principal
at the Hall called by her name. I am doubtful whether she did
right in accejfilng, but only for a reason wliich does not occur to
any of the friends and relations who write about it. I fear that
she may not find time for the work of the S.P.R., for which I think
her uniquely fit — much more fit than I am. If it turns out that
she must sacrifice some of this work, I shall have to take her place ;
but my intellect will be an inferior substitute for this work, and
I shall give up with reluctance the plans of literary work for which
I am better fitted. Still, if it must be so, I shall give them up
without hesitation, ju.st as I should give them up to fight for my
country if it was invaded.”

I may add that when at this juncture I expressed to Mrs Sidgwick,
in sinte of my own affection for Newnham, my fear that the extra
administrative work involved must interfere with her work for the
S.P.R., she listened attentively to all I had to say, and at last
merely replied, “ Well, if you ever find me getting slack about the
S.P.R., you must pull me up.” She was actually then in the middle
of one of the heaviest tasks she had ever undertaken for the S.P.R.,
viz. the Census of Hallucinations, which, begun in 1889, was pub-
lished in 1894. Her remarkable powers of concentration helped her
to carry on these two departments of work — for the College and for
the S.P.R. concurrently. Very few ol those associated with her in
either had any adeo[uate realisation — many, I think, were entirely
ignorant ol her interest in the other. This was partly due to her
constant tendency to talk to people about their affairs, not her own ;

146] Worlc in Psychical Besearch

and lier habit of ap])earing’ at liberty to attend to airvthiny lirought
before her.

Census of Ualhicinations

The object of the Census of Hallucinations was to discover the
frequency of hallucinations ex])erienced by sane and healthy per-
sons in a waking state, and the j^roportion of them occairring at a
time when some marked event was happening to the person repre-
sented, e.g. an apparition seen, or a voice heard, at the time of death,
with a view to finding whether such coincidences occurred more
often than they might have done by chance. Thus it was attempted
to apply to s])ontaneous telepathic cases the same principle as had
been applied to experiments in telepathy.

The method employed was to ask as many people as possible
whether they had ever had a hallucination, getting details from those
who answered in the affirmative, and to tabulate the results. Gurney
had already attempted such an enquiry, but had only got answers
from about 5,700 persons, which he thought too small a number for
the purpose.

In 1889 a committee was appointed by the Council of the S.P.R.
to start a fresh enquiry on a larger scale. The undertaking was
approved by the International Congress of Experimental Psychology
held in Paris, which entrusted the enquiry to Sidgwick’s direction.
The interest taken in it by the Congress led the committee to enlarge
its scope, so as to include not only the points of special interest to
the S.P.R. , viz. the further testing of the hypothesis of telepathy,
but also points of interest to ])sychologists generally, who might be
studying the phenomena of hallucination. (The great value for
psychological study of the material in the Report on the Census was
emphasised in a paper by Mr Piddington, published about twelve
years later, in Proceedings, vol. xix, pp. 267 ff.)

The committee consisted of six persons, the Sidgwicks, F. W. H.
and Dr A. T. Myers, Podmore and myself. The Report, which
occupies almost the whole of Proceedings, vol. x, was written chiefly
by Mrs Sidgwick, who also worked out the statistical calculations,
while Sidgwick acted as Chairman of the Committee. There were
frequent meetings of the whole committee, and the other members
worked at collecting information and enquiring into the cases
received, both through correspondence and interviewing witnesses.
Answers were received from 17,000 persons, and many iirteresting
and well-authenticated cases of coincidental hallucinations were
reported.

The calculation as to whether these coincidences were due to

Alice. Johnson : Mrs Henry Sidgiviclc's [part

chance was based on the average annual death-rate for England and
Wales for the ten years 1881-1890, which was 19-15 per thousand.
This gives the probability that any one ])erson taken at random will
die on a given day — for this purpose taken as the day on which his
apparition is seen and recognised — as about 1 in 19,000. We should
then expect that out of 19,000 apparitions of living persons, one
would occur on the day of death of the person seen.

Now, in order to make sure that we are not exaggerating the case
against explanation by chance, it is necessary to weight it in favour
of chance : viz. by making as much as possible of the total number
of apjiaritions and as little as possible of the coincidental ones. In
particular, we have to allow for a large number of the apparitions
seen having been forgotten and therefore not reported, and for the
coincidences having been exaggerated.

It was calculated, then, that the number of apparitions reported
should be multiplied by 4, :naking them 1,300, and that only the
best-authenticated cases of death coincidences should be reckoned,
which reduced them to thirty. This gives thirty coincidences out
of 1,300 cases, or about 1 in 43, as compared with the 1 in 19,000 that
might have been produced by chance, and 1 in 43 is equivalent to
about 440 in 19,000 or 440 times the most probable number.

This is, of course, a very brief summary of the argument, which is
given at length with detailed reasoning as to all steps of it in the
Keport, of which I quote the final jDaragraph (vol. x, p. 394) :

“ Between deaths and apparitions of the dying person a connexion
exists which is not diie to chance alone. This we hold as a proved
fact. The discussion of its full imphcations cannot be attempted in
this paper ; — nor, perhaps, exhausted in this age.”

Eusaj)ia Paladino

The next important investigation — that of the celebrated Nea-
])olitan medium, Eusapia Paladino — was less satisfactory in its
u])shot. It was alleged {Proceedi)igs, vol. ix, p. 219) that Ensapia
had never been detected in fraud, and therefore ajjpeared a suitable
subject for investigation. Later it transpired that at least highly
suspicious circumstances had been noted by several observers.

In July 1894 sittings had been held in the south of France by
Bichet, who, with various other eminent scientists, both French and
Enghsh, including Sir Ohver Lodge and Myers, had been convinced
of Eusapia’s powers. About a month later, the Sidgwicks attended
a further series of six sittings and were impressed, though not con-
vinced, by what they saw. Mrs Sidgwick said {Journal, vol. vi,

146] Work in Psychical Research 69

p. 339) : “ As far as they go, my experiences with Eusapia Paladino
entirely confirm Professor Lodge, though they do not go so far — for
the phenomena I witnessed were never, I think, such as could not
have been produced by normal means had her hands alone been
free. . . . The evidence, so far as my own experiences go, entirely
depends upon whether her hands were efficiently held.” Sidgwick
concurred in this view.

The report (by Sir 0. Lodge and others) of these sittings was
severely criticised by Hodgson (Journal, vol. vii, pp. 36 ft.) on the
ground that the control, as described, was insufficient to guard against
fraud. Though the sitters were no doubt familiar theoretically with
most of the tricks described by Hodgson, prol^ably no member of the
Society approached him in both theoretical and practical knowledge
of conjuring and mediumistic frauds, nor do I think that aziy have
rivalled him since. Every educated person assumes the fallibility
of human observation and human memory ; but it is not easy to
make full allowance for it till one has discovered by practical ex-
perience how far one’s own fallibility goes in both respects.

Hodgson’s criticisms confirmed the Sidgwicks in their view that
further experiments were necessary before coming to a conclusion.
They therefore arranged with Myers a series of sittings at Cambridge
in August and Sejztember 1895. This series began with high hopes.
Eusapia stayed for seven weeks at Myers’s house, being treated there
with the utmost kindness and hospitality, which she exploited to the
full. As few of their neighbours could speak Italian, the Sidgwicks
went constantly to the house to help in entertaining her.

Efforts were made to induce her to submit to some form of
mechanical control more satisfactory than the mere holding of her
hands, but she refused all such suggestions. I well remember her
rage when it was proposed that she should sit before the open
doorway of a room with a net curtain stretched over the doorway,
and the objects to be moved put on a table on the other side of the
curtain. She would also be constantly calling for “ less light ” as
the sitting proceeded.

Altogether twenty sittings were held. At the first few phenomena
occurred which the sitters were unable to explain, but suspicious
circumstances began very early to appear, suggesting that Eusapia
was getting one hand free by a method that Richet had in fact
already guessed. Nevertheless the attempt was continued to get
genuine phenomena imder unimpeachable conditions rather than to
discover fraud.

Among other sitters, the celebrated conjurer Maskelyne was in-
vited, and though he was not, I think, convinced that anything

Alice Johvson : Mrs Henry SidgtvicHs [part

sujjernornial was occurring, lie was not alile to make any new
suggestion as to how the phenomena were jiroduced. Later Hodgson
came from America to assist, and liis experience proved conclusively
what we had already suspected as to the method by which Eusapia
got one hand free by making the other do duty for two, so that the
sitters on each side of her were both holding the same hand. She had
great muscular strength, which enabled her to force the sitters’
hands into the position most suitable for the substitution. This
muscular strength often struck me, and I saw her more than once,
outside the sittings, lift great weights with no apparent effort.

In the end Mr and Mrs Myers, the Sidgwicks, Hodgson and myself
unanimously came to the conclusion that nothing but deliberate
trickery had been at work in the Cambridge series of sittings.

M'hile Myers and Sir Oliver Lodge, unlike the Sidgwicks, retained
their belief in the earlier series, it was agreed that the records of these
should not be treated as part of the evidence put forward by the
Society in favour of the genuineness of physical phenomena. The
records were therefore ])rinted in the Journal only, and not published
in the Proceedings.

Replies to Criticisms

Next year (1896) an attack was made on the validity of the
Brighton experiments by two Danish ])sychologists, Lehmann and
Hansen, who, on the strength of some experiments of their own,
maintained that the successes at Brighton could be explained by
“ involuntary whispering ” on the part of the agent, cond^ined with
hyperaesthesia in the jjercipient.

Playing in turn the j^art of agent and pcrcijnent in 500 experiments
in the transmission of num1)ers, they found that each was able to
guess many of tlie numbers through hearing the other’s (so-called)
“ involuntary ” whis])ering. This might have been expected, but
the point was that when they guessed wrong, they found that the
same “ substitutions ” — guesses of one number for another — occurred
as had occurred at Brighton.

In the first Brighton report {Proceedings, vol. vi, p. 164) the
possibilities of unconscious whispering and hyperaesthesia had been
discussed and the mistakes had been analysed from the point of
view of finding whether they could be due to mishearing — the mis-
taking of one number for another similar to it in sound, such as five
for nine. It had been found that mistakes of that kind were not
more jtrevalent than any other mistakes.

Lehmann and Hansen, however, in whose experiments the agent

146]

Work in Psychical Research

and percipient were mucli nearer to one another than was customary
at Brighton, found that numbers could be transmitted by faint
whispering with closed lips, in such a way that a by-stander, in a
shghtly less favourable position for hearing than the percipient,
might neither hear a sound nor see any sign of movement of the
speech-organs of the agent.

It was the custom at Brighton for one of the investigators to watch
the agent, and another the percipient, in order to guard against
signals being given or received — either consciously or unconsciously.
The Sidgwicks now made a large number of experiments with G. A.
Smith, Mrs Verrall and myself, to see what results could be got by
the methods of Lehmann and Hansen.

It was found that faint whispering — more or less audible to the
percipient — could be produced with no visible movement of the lips,
but not without discernible movements of the neck and throat.
Nevertheless, the results confirmed what had always been assumed
— that if the case for telepathy rested solely on experiments with
agent and percipient in the same room, it could not be considered
conclusive.

The Danish psychologists, however, maintained that comparison
of their wrong guesses with the Brighton ones provided strong posi-
tive evidence that the same mode of transmission was operative in
both cases.

Now, among the Brighton experiments there was a series with
agent and percipient either in different buildings or separated from
one another by at least two closed doors and a passage. In this
series the successes were not beyond chance, so that they must be
regarded as mere guesses. Yet the “ substitutions ” in this series
corresponded with those in the successful telepathic experiments, at
least as much as the latter corresponded with the Danish series.
And since in the series of pure guesses there was no transmission at
all, the cause of the correspondence in “ substitutions ” could not be,
as had been maintained by the critics, that the same mode of trans-
mission was operative in both cases.

The report of the Sidgwicks’ joint examination of the subject was
read by Sidgwick at the International Congress of Psychology at
Munich in August 1896, and published for simphcity under his name
alone in Proceedings, vol. xii. Actually the greater part of the paper,
and in particular the calculations involved, were the work of Mrs
Sidgwick.

Alice Johiison : Mrs Henry SidgioicHs [part

Criiicism of ihe Census of Halluci)iations

Another notable exain])le of Mrs Sidgwick’s method of dealing
with criticism is her defence of the Report on the Census of Halluci-
nations against the strictures of a German ]3sychologist, Edmund
Parish, whose ])am]')hlet, Zur Kritik des TelepatJiisehen Beweis
Materiels, was read before the Psychological Society of Munich in
1897.

Parish argued that many reported cases probably did not occur
at all, but were due to illusions of memory ; that, if they did occur,
the recognition of the figure seen was ])robably imported into the
narrative afterwards by memory adaptation ; that the reason why
the coincidences of apparition with death appear to be beyond
chance is that the coincidence causes dreams to be remembered as
waking hallucinations ; finally that the content of a hallucination
may be due solely to association of ideas, not to telepathy.

Mrs Sidgwick in her review of the book in Proceedings, vol. xiii,
pp. 589 ff. points out that all these possible defects of memory had
been considered in the Rej^ort, and allowance made for them ; and
that the questions of recognition and of whether the percipient was
awake or asleep had been carefully examined. She remarks that
I’arish does not seem to gras]:i the juirely subjective character of the
hallucinatory process : that it is self-suggestion, rather than pseudo-
memory, that determines many of the details, making hallucinatory
figures or objects look as real ones would in similar circumstances.
It was constantly urged throughout the Report that the percipient’s
ideas affected the form of the hallucination — indeed in the very
cases which Parish cites as proof of the influence of association of
ideas. Even when the fundamental idea — the idea of the person
seen — was to be attributed to telepathy, such details as dress,
attitude and ])osition in space, were, according to the Report,
determined by self-suggestion or association of ideas.

But, whatever influence this may have on the form of the hallu-
cination, it has no bearing on the question whether the coincidences
are due to chance or not. For the known existence of one cause of
an event cannot exclude the operation of another, unless the first
can be shown to be absolutely necessary and sufficient under all
conditions.

Furthermore, Parish maintains that, since there cannot be a causal
connexion between the death and the hallucination, we must turn
the statistical argument round. The Report found that thirty death
coincidences occurred among 17,000 informants, while 1 in 19,000
liallucinations is the number that chance would produce. So the

146]

Worh in Psychical Research

real number of apparitions seen must have been 30 x 19,000, or
570,000. It would follow from this, according to the figures given
in the Report, that the informants must have forgotten or ignored
more than 98 per cent, of the hallucinations that had occurred to
them a fortnight or less before they were asked if they had ever
experienced one.

Mrs Sidgwick concludes : “If Herr Parish finds himself able to
adopt so extravagant a conclusion, there is no more to be said.”

Early Piper Sittings

The chief single subject investigated in the last few years of last
century was the trance phenomena of Mrs Piper. She had first been
introduced to the S.P.R. by Wilham James, and had come to Eng-
land in 1889-1890. She had visited Cambridge, and stayed for some
time in the houses of Mr and Mrs Myers and Mr and Mrs Sitlgwick ;
and had also visited Sir Ohver Lodge at Liverpool and had sittings
with Walter Leaf and others in London. It was a moment of special
interest, as the first occasion on which a considerable number of
successful sittings had been held vuth a medium who appeared
beyond suspicion and who, as a matter of fact, has never been con-
victed of dehberate fraud.

Many of the Piper Reports which appeared in vols. xiii and xiv of
the Proceedings were written in consultation with Mrs Sidgwick ;
she studied the details, both published and unpublished, with ex-
treme care, and herself attended a number of sittings.

An illunfinating “ Discussion of the Trance Phenomena of Mrs
Piper ” was written by her in 1899, and pubhshed in Proceedings,
vol. XV, pp. 16 ff. She accepted the conclusions arrived at by the
majority of sitters with Mrs Piper that the supernormal knowledge
displayed m her trance was not acquired by fraudulent means, and
that it could not as a whole be drawn from the mind of the sitter.
Hodgson, who had been the principal investigator, was convinced
that communication from the dead through Mrs Piper was practically
proved. Mrs Sidgwick thought this too tremendous a conclusion to
be based on the study — however prolonged — of a single medium.
But she considered the evidence for it sufficient to allow her to adopt
it as a working hypothesis. And, granting commmfication from the
dead, she proceeded to argue for Tele2)athy versus Possession —
which was Hodgson’s theory — as the mode of communication.

It has often been assumed that if telej^athy be true, it would be
almost impossible to get evidence for communication with the dead.
On the other hand, it is the discovery of telepathy that affords the

74 Alice Johnson : Mrs Henry SidgrviclJs [part

strongest presumption for the possibility. For if telepathy is a
spiritual process — a communication between mind and mind in
which the physical world is not concerned — it would tend to estab-
lish the existence of mind apart from body, with the further prob-
abilities that the mind may continue to exist after the death of the
body and continue to be able to communicate with minds in the
body ; and, indeed, that it is by telepathy that disembodied spirits
communicate with one another. Mrs Sidgwick, then, uses the word
Telepathy in the sense of any communication between mind and
mind otherwise than through the recognised channels of sense,
whether the communicating minds be in the body or not. She main-
tains that the intelligence actually communicating with the sitter
by voice or writing is Mrs Piper herself in some condition of dis-
sociation of consciousness, in communication of a supernormal, but
partial and uncertain kind, with other minds — of the living and of
the dead — and conveying by voice and writing the information thus
obtained, mixed up with much that has been acquired or imagined
in a normal way.

It is noteworthy that the “ controls ” exhibit themselves very
realistically in bad as well as in good sittmgs, which would naturally
be the case if they were part of Mrs Piper herself. And this hypo-
thesis would account for the frequent failures, absurdities and false
statements that are difficult to reconcile with the supposition that
the “ control ” is actually the deceased person that he purports
to be.

Some people, as is well known, are “ good ” sitters, in the sense
that they get good results from a medium, and others are “ bad ”
sitters. Mrs Sidgwick remarks that this fact suggests that the sitter
is an important factor in the case ; that if Mrs Piper got all her in-
formation telepathically from him, her failures might be due simply
to his being a bad agent, as we find in thought-transference experi-
ments that many people seem to be bad agents. But a good sitter
seems in some way to make the process of transmission easier, even
when it is difficult to suppose that the information comes from his
mind. Hodgson attributed the failure of sitters to such causes as
want of attention, or of desire to succeed ; and he thought that the
attitude of mind of some persons might be actually repellent to the
efforts of their deceased friends to communicate. On this Mrs Sidg-
wick remarks : “I speak as one who has uniformly failed, whether as
agent or percipient in thought-transference experiments, or as sitter
with Mrs Piper and other mediums, and I am sure that the cause is
not want of sympathy or desire to succeed, or belief that success is
possible. After years of failure the inevitable absence of hoije may

146]

Work in Psychical Research

have a damping effect, but this will not account for failure when hope
is fresh. I think it is certain that the sitter does not serve only as an
attraction to his deceased friends, but that . . . there are subliminal
qualities in the sitters which [affect the results]. Now this is not,
I think, consistent with the hypothesis that the communicator . . .
uses Mrs Piper’s organism directly [i.e. the hypothesis of Possession] ;
for if so, why should it be more difficult for him to speak or write for
A than for B ? We require a hypothesis which allows for all three
minds — the minds of the deceased friend, of Mrs Piper and of the
sitter — being subliminally concerned in the result.”

There is positive evidence that Mrs Piper sometimes draws ideas
telepathically from the sitter’s mind, e.g. when mistaken ideas of
the sitters are reproduced. There is also some evidence of telepathic
communication between dead and living persons in a normal state — ■
though at that date not nearly so strong as the evidence for tele-
pathy between living j^ersons. And it is probable that many tele-
pathic communications do not rise above the subliminal conscious-
ness of the percipient.

It is possible then that Mrs Piper may be in telepathic communi-
cation vdth the sitter, and that the sitter may, without knowing it,
be in telepathic relation with his dead friend, and that his function
is to be a channel of communication between his friend and Mrs
Piper. The latter, on this hypothesis, plays the part of a bad mirror,
reflecting very hnperfectly the contents of the sitter’s subliminal con-
sciousness, coloured and distorted by the contents of her own. Some-
times there would be no evidence of any connnunication from the
dead, only the sitter’s own ideas being reflected. Also it would not
be impossible that Mrs Piper herself, as well as the sitter, should
sometimes receive communications direct from the dead. Also her
trance personahty might, in the course of a number of sittings,
gradually acquire, as part of its own stock of ideas, a definite con-
ception of the deceased person, and as this happened the interming-
ling of ideas from all three sources might become more and more
indistinguishable.

Memoir of Henry Sidgwick

The next year (1900) brought the great tragedy of Henry Sidg-
wick’s illness and death. Mrs Sidgwick, with the courage that never
forsook her, carried on meanwhile to the utmost of her power all the
responsibihties that she had iniflertaken, till she was persuaded by
her friends at the end of the year to go al )road for a few months’ rest.
On her return, in addition to her work at Newiiham, she devoted

Alice Johnaoii : Airs Henry Sidgwicli’s [part

herself to completing as far as possible her husband’s literary-
schemes. She brought out new editions of three of his philosophical
works, with four volumes of unpublished material left by him. Also,
in conjunction with his brother, she wTote a Memoir of him and
brought out a volume of Aliscellaneous Essays. For the philosophical
work she had the help of specialists, but she read all the proofs
herself, and this took up so much time that she was not able to write
much for the S.P.R. till after the appearance of the Memoir early in
1906. After her husband’s death, she was for the first time elected a
Member of the Council, and remained on it for the rest of her life.

Aiitomatic Scripts

Mrs Sidgwick took a keen interest in the new developments that
occurred almost immediately after the death of Myers in 1901.
Hitherto prolonged systematic investigations had been carried on
exclusively with professional or semi-professional mediums. But
now a band of automatic writers, of whom Mrs Verrall was the first,
began themselves to ex])eriment. They were educated and intelli-
gent women, sometimes as able as the investigators to criticise the
results obtained, and in any case willing and anxious to have their
work rigidly scrutinised and tested, and giving all the help they
could to this end.

To those who had been accustomed to deal with professional |
mediums, who resented criticism and rec[uired to be humoured like I
children, the complete change of atmosphere was an untold relief.
One could talk to these automatists with frankness, as man to man,
and discuss freely without fear of giving offence any question that i
turned up, for they were not concerned with their own fame, but i
simply with the pursuit of scientific truth. |

As time went on, “ Cross-correspondences ” between the scripts i
of the various automatists began to appear. In a typical Cross-
correspondence, there is no exact reproduction in the script of one
automatist of a phrase in the other, or even a different expression
of the same idea, which inight be attributed to telepathy between
them. There is a fragmentary utterance in one, which seems to have
no particular point or meaning, and another fragmentary and appar-
ently pointless utterance in the other. But when the two are put
together, or when a link between them appears in the script of a
third automatist, it is seen that they supplement one another and
form one coherent idea underlying all the scripts, though only
partially expressed in each. This suggests that the idea originates
in an intelligence external to the minds of the automatists, which

146]

Work in Psychical Research

inspires them to utter the fragments. Thus it seemed that the Cross-
correspondences furnished the best evidence so far obtained for
communication from the dead ; but the supposed scheme was not
obvious at first, and only through much accumulation of material
and prolonged study did it appear. Nor is the evidence of a kind
that can be easily summarised, depending as it does on a multitude
of details interlocking with one another. Naturally, any single
Cross-correspondence can be explained away as due merely to
chance ; but in course of time the evidence steadily increased and
improved, and the case for the theory rests on its cumulative force.

In this work, it was always Mrs Sidgwick’s opinion of the value
of the evidence that was most eagerly awaited by the investigators.
All felt that they had scored a point if they could satisfy her.

Meanwhile work with Mrs Pijier was going on, and a number of
important cases of nndtijfie personality were published, which
afforded further material for the study of automatism.

Obituary of Hodgson

At the end of 19U5, the Society suffered another great loss in the
death of Richard Hodgson. Mrs Sidgwick’s obituary notice of him
in Proceedings, vol. xix, p. 356, describes his immense zeal, energy
and enthusiasm. Hodgson was emphatically a man who had les
defauts de ses qualites, and while this gave piquancy to his character,
it hardly detracted, as she shows, from the value of his work. He
had devoted his life whole-heartedly to psychical research. His
powers were often apphed to necessary but destructive work in
exposing trickery. But his experimental investigation in conjunc-
tion with S. J. Davey into the j^ossibilities of mal-observation and
lapse of memory, mentioned above, has a constructive side, estab-
lishing psychological data of great importance for the estimation of
evidence, and is of lasting value. Through his study of Mrs Piper,
which almost entirely absorbed the last eighteen years of his life, he
added largely to the positive evidence for supernormal phenomena.
He collected an immense quantity of material about it and pubhshed
important reports, but unfortunately died, leaving a large mass
unpublished.

Reply to Morselli on Eusapia

In vol. xxi (pp. 516 ff.) appears an instructive discussion of Prof.
Morselh’s Psicologia e Epiritismo : Impressioni e note critiche sui
fenonieni medianici di Eusapia Paladino. Morselli was specially

Alice Johyison : Mrs Henry SidgivicFs [part

interested in demonstrating that the spiritualistic hypothesis in this
case was absurd ; but while admitting occasional trickery, he main-
tained that some unknown supernormal force was present. Mrs
Sidgwick replied that it is difficult to see how any serious student
could suppose that the spiritualistic hypothesis would render the
phenomena more intelligible ; but that the more important point
is to prove the absence of trickery, not the absence of spiritual
agency. She thought that Morselli had not sufficiently attended to
this, or allowed enough margin beyond what is normally possible to
justify the assumption of supernormality.

Illustrating the case by her own experiences in the Cambridge
sittings, she shows point by point the inadequacy of the precautions
described by Morselli to guard against fraud, explaining how this
was only gradually discovered at Cambridge. She remarks that
Morselh seems to think that when fraud has not been discovered by
sensible persons resjjonsible for watching the medium, the presump-
tion is that it has not occurred : in fact, that the onus prohandi is
with those who doubt the genuineness of the phenomena. She says :
“ I have not the same confidence that he has in my own or any one
else’s powers of continuous observation, especially in darkness or
semi-darkness ; and when it has been shown that a medium sys-
tematically practises trickery, the presumption, I think, is that on
any particular occasion when an unexplained phenomenon takes
])lace, an opportunity for trickery unobserved by the investigator
has been found.”

Hon. Secretary and President

In 1907 Mrs Sidgwick undertook the office of Hon. Secretary of
the S.P.K. which she retained till 1932. During some of these years
another member of the Council shared the work, till Mr Salter, her
latest colleague, took sole charge of it.

For the two years 1908 and 1909 she was President. She could
only be persuaded to give one Presidential Address, w'hich is pub-
lished in Proceedings, vol. xxii, for her forte lay rather in the detailed
examination and digestion of a mass of material than in a general
survey of a wide miscellaneous held. Put whenever she attempted
the latter, she had a gift for picking out salient points and treating
them with independence, if not with originality.

In this Address she sketches briefly the. departments of work
envisaged in the original syllabus of the Society and the progress
made in each. Of one, clairvoyance, she says [cf. above, j). 64) that
successful dowsing seems to afford the only evidence so far obtained

146] Work in Psychical Research 79

for pure clairvoyance or telsestliesia as distiuguislied from telepathy,
the difference between the two faculties being of great theoretic
importance.

She goes on to discuss automatism, as the external expression of
subliminal mentation, and the great advances made in the under-
standing of it through the work of Myers and the hypnotic researches
of Gurney, in addition to those of medical men at home and abroad,
many of whom were actively interested in the S.P.R. In regard to
telepathy, she urges the constant need for fresh evidence both to
confirm what we already have, and to help in discovering, if possible,
the laws that govern it.

She remarks that there is one department in which no real progress
has been made — the physical phenomena of spiritualism, or tele-
kinesis. This seems to stand where it did twenty-six years ago,
when the Society was founded. The phenomena are still swamped
in fraud, and still occur for the most part in the presence of profes-
sional medimns who are sooner or later detected in trickery. On the
other hand, impressive evidence is still occasionally forthcoming.
The work in this field, however, has not been entirely barren, for
we have a much more definite experimental knowledge of the possi-
bilities of mal-observation than we had. And our greatly extended
knowledge of motor automatism has shown that the possibihty of
comphcated subconscious muscular action has to be reckoned with
even more than was thought.

She urges strongly that in order to further the investigation, fraud
should be more seriously discouraged. If telekinesis is genuine, we
should probably know more about it if it had not been mixed up
with fraud. The reason for fraud is that it pays so well, for the
medium generally runs no risk, even of loss of credit, through dis-
covery : he is as much in demand after exposure as before. If such
a person were at once dropped or ignored, the trade would cease to
be profitable, and the ground for investigation — if there are genuine
phenomena to be investigated — ^vmuld be considerably cleared. It
is also to be noted that while, in other branches of the subject, the
hope of the founders of the Society that private medimns would
come forward and give their help in investigation has been fulfilled
and progress has been largely due to this fact, — hi the case of tele-
kinesis no disinterested persons have come forward apparently
possessing this power, and taking enough scientific interest in it to
carry them through the tedium of careful experiment.

Mrs Sidgwick next mentions the importance of the study of
hallucination in relation to its possible bearing on om evidence and
quotes a case which had excited much interest among scientific men

Alice Johnson : Mrs Henry SidgwicHs [part

a few years earlier. A French physicist of repute, while investi-
gating Rontgen rays, thought he had discovered a new kind, which
he named N-rays, whose presence was shown by an increase in
luminosity of feeble sources of light. Physicists all over the world
tried to repeat these experiments, but though a few could see the
effects described, most could not. Finally an American physicist.
Professor Wood, visited the laboratory of one of the successful seers
to test his results. It was said that a hand interposed in the path
of the rays intercepted them, but Professor Wood found by a large
number of experiments that the effects observed varied, not accord-
ing to what was really happening, but according to what the observer
thought was happening. The difference in sensation was, in fact, a
hallucination produced by expectation.

Mrs Sidgwick thought that the possibility of hallucinations,
caused by suggestion, at sittings for physical phenomena was greater
than is generally reahsed. We know that hallucinations can be
induced in many persons by crystal-gazing, or by hypnotic sugges-
tion, and the N-ray experiments showed that riidimentary hallu-
cinations could occur in a darkened room to persons in a normal state.

She passes on to the most encouraging branch of our investigations,
— Telepathy, and reiterates the necessity for getting constantly
fresh and better evidence for it. She remarks that any evidence we
can obtain of survival after bodily death is likely to throw light on
the nature of telepathy and vice versa.

Lastly, she refers to the recent advance made through the scripts
of Mrs Verrall, Mrs Holland and others ; saying that at least we
have in them material for extending our knowledge of telepathy,
while the form and matter of the cross-correspondences between the
scripts of automatists at a distance from one another afford consider-
able ground for su^jposing the intervention behind the automatists
of another mind indejDendent of them. If this be the mind of a
j)erson who has survived death, it would mean that intelligent co-
operation between disembodied minds and our own, in experiments
of a new kind intended to prove continued existence, has become
possible, — a new and very important stage of the Society’s work.

Further Piper Sittings

Mrs Sidgwick had meanwhile been taking part in this new work
as a member of the committee for ex^ieriments with ]\'L’s Riper, who
had been lu'ought to England after Hodgson’s death, and gave
seventy-folu- sittings, at nmeteen of which Mrs Sidgwick was in
charge, from November 1906 to June 1907.

146]

Work in Psychical Research

The committee decided that their main ol)jects should be, [a] to
encourage the develojiment of certain “ controls ” who had already
been manifesting in her trance, purporting to be Sidgwick, Myers
and Hodgson, and (6) to try to bring about cross-correspondences
with the other automatists. The controls continiied, but only
Myers showed a marked advance in dramatisation and in the
vraisemblance of the personation. A number of striking cross-
correspondences occurred between the scripts of Mrs Piper and those
of Mrs and Miss Verrall and Mrs Holland. A full report, drawn up
by Mr Piddington, occujiies almost the whole of Proceedings, vol.
xxii, with a short sejmrate article by Mrs Sidgwick at the end.

In the next two volumes occur further studies of the Hodgson
control in the English Pi2oer sittings, and of the cross-corresjDondence
experiments carried on in the Sf)ring of 1908 between Mrs Piper in
America, under the charge of G. P. Dorr, and the automatists in
England. The rejDorts of these, by Mrs Sidgwick, Mr Piddington
and Mrs Verrall, include a number of successful and instructive
cases, which must be read in detail to be a2)i)reciated.

Obituary of Podniore

In her obituary notice of Frank Podmore in vol. xxv, Mrs Sidgwick
emj^hasises the great value to the Society of the critical work with
which his name had chiefly come to be associated, although he had
contributed much to the collection of evidence for telejmthy. She
observes : “ Ignorant criticism we can get plenty of, but when not
harmful it is usually quite useless. What it is not easy to find is a
man with imflagging energy in keejjing his knowledge up to date,
unflagging belief in the iin|3ortance of the investigation, who yet
can jDut himself outside it and view it from an im2:)artial, imj^ersonal
and mainly critical standpoint. . . . The Society will be fortunate
indeed if it finds another critic equally friendly, learned, j)ainstaking
and accurate, to take Mr Podmore’s jilace, and 2^ut the brake on
when there are signs of running too fast.”

Reply to Dr Tanner s “ Studies in Spiritism ”

In striking contrast to Podmore’s methods was a book by two
American psychologists. Studies in Sjyiritism, by Dr Amy Tanner,
with an Introduction by Professor Stanley Hall, reviewed by Mrs
Sidgwick in vol. xxv, })p. 102 ft. On the strength of six sittings with
Mrs Piper, carried out in a different spirit from that of the S.P.R.,
the writers attempted to discredit all the results obtained by the

Alice Johnson : Mrs Henry Sidgioick’s [part

latter. They tried dehberately to mislead the controls, so as to
confuse their statements — telling them, in fact, what the Hodgson
control justly described as “ awful whoppers.” They also subjected
Mrs Piper, without her consent, to a number of disagreeable and
painfid experiments to test the degree of anaesthesia in trance, the
effects of which lasted after waking and were greatly resented by her.

Mrs Sidgwick was not often moved to anger, but this behaviour,
so completely at variance with her own straightforward and con-
siderate treatment of mediums, excited her indignation. She
limited herself, nevertheless, in her review to a disjjassionate dis-
section of the misrepresentations and inaccuracies of the account
of the Enghsh sittings given in the book ; finally observing that it
may impress persons who derive their knowledge of the evidence
discussed from it alone, but that a very different view would be
formed by any one who would check Dr Tanner’s version by reference
to the original sources.

Reply to Dr Maxwell on Cross-Correspondences

The next article to be mentioned deals with a critic of another
stani]). Dr Joseph Maxwell (author of Les Phenomenes Psycliiques),
whose j^aper on “ Les Correspondances Croisees et la Methode Ex-
perimentale ” had been pubhshed in Proceedings, vol. xxvi, pp. 57 ff.
Mrs Sidgwick rejJies to it in tlie same vok, ]>p. 375 ff. That Dr
Maxwell had studied the reports with care is shown by his animad-
versions on a number of detailed cases which he quotes, and such
discussions must always be instructive. Mrs Sidgwick admits the
justice of some of his criticisms, e.g. that it would be easier to judge
of scripts if they were printed entire, instead of only partially. But
she takes exception to some of his views on methods. He thinks that
too much dependence is jjlaced on the automatists’ good faith and
that automatists should not be co-investigators. He imagines that
both investigators and automatists start with the desire to prove
some jjarticular thesis, and frequently misunderstands what the
reports are actually trying to prove. Thus, when they try to find
the source of some literary allusion or quotation, he imagines that
they give it as evidence of the automatists’ supernormal knowledge,
whereas it is of course generally evidence of their normal knowledge
and the chief object of finding the literary source is to see whether
it strengthens or weakens the cross-correspondence.

To the ordinary educated Englishman, his propensity to find in
the spirituahst paper Light the sources of such phrases as “ Crossing
the Bar,” “ seven times seven ” or “ Pharaoh’s daughter ” must

146]

Worlc in Psychical Research

apjjear simply grotesque. But, whatever their source, a careful
reader can hardly overlook the extent to which both cryptomnesia,
on which Dr Maxwell lays such stress, and a margin for subliminal
action of all kinds on the part of the automatists has been allowed
for by the investigators.

As a general disquisition on cross-corresjrondences and what they
point to, this paper of Mrs Sidgwick’s is particularly valuable. She
remarks : “ Regarded merely as proof of telepathy, their importance
can hardly be over-rated, and much more may ultimately be proved
by them. ... I myself think the evidence is pointing towards the
conclusion that our former fellow- workers are still working with us.”

Psychology of the Piper Trance

Mrs Sidgvdck’s “ Contribution to the Study of the Psychology of
Mrs Piper’s Trance Phenomena,” which occupies the whole (67G pjr.)
of vol. xxviii (1915) ^ is one of the most important studies of the
relation of psychology to psychical research since the publication of
Myers’s Human Personality. It excludes the evidence for Mrs
Piper’s supernormal powers, of which so much had already been
pubhshed ; but simply attempts to throw light on the trance con-
sciousness, and the question whether the intelligence that speaks or
writes in the trance, and sometimes exhibits supernormal powers, is
other than a phase, or centre of consciousness, of Mrs Piper herself.

The question had already been discussed by Mrs Sidgwick in the
paper in vol. xv, referred to above. Here it is examined afresh in a
broad survey of the whole ground, with a wealth of illustrative
detail.

Hodgson had, in a number of sittings, tried to get from the com-
municators their own theory of the phenomena, and their descrip-
tion of the conditions under which they were working and of the
life they hve. He had intended to write an account of this, but
unfortunately died without even leaving any notes to indicate what
his treatment would have been. There is no doubt, however, that
he tended to take the statements of the communicators far more at
their face value than did Mrs Sidgwick.

If we are ever to approach an understanding of communication
between the living and the dead, it must obviously be through a
medium who provides good and abundant evidence at least of
telepathic power. Mrs Piper was chosen because we have fuller
records of her phenomena than of any other medium, and it is more

^ Tlie synopsis of contents at the beginning of the volnine will be found a
great help to readers.

Alice Johnson : Mrs Henry Sidgwick's [part

enlightening to compare statements made at different times by the
same medium than to range over the whole field, jiicking out points
from a number of different automatists.

Mrs Sidgwick begins her discussion with a useful definition of the
two words “ Control ” and “ Communicator ” which had hitherto
been treated as synonymous. She defines “ Control ” (a word of
course common in spirituahstic parlance) as the intelligence which
is or professes to be in direct communication with the sitter by voice
or writing ; and “ Communicator ” as the intelhgence for which the
control professes to act as amanuensis or interpreter, or whose re-
marks the control repeats to the sitter. The roles of control and
communicator may lie interchangeable ; but the main idea under-
lying the conception is that Mrs Piper's spirit is supposed to be
temporarily absent, and her body meanwhile occupied by the control.
It is asserted that successful working with the medium’s organism
needs special skill and practice ; hence the necessity for a control
intervening between communicator and sitter.

The controls tend to be more or less eminent historical characters,
such as J. S. Bach, Mrs Siddons, Sir Walter Scott and Moses (known
as “ Moses of old ” to distinguish him from Stainton Moses). They
fail, however, to produce evidence of their identity. The most
important group are the “ spirit guides ” of Stainton Moses. They
use the pseudonyms — Imperator, Rector, etc. — wliicli he gave them
to conceal their exalted or semi-sacred character, but they never
succeeded in revealing their real names. Nevertheless, in some way
for which it is difficult to account, they seem to help the phenomena
to emerge, and it was often found convenient to allow them osten-
sibly to take charge of the proceedings. Of course, this may have
been simjdy due to Mrs Piper’s belief in their existence.

There are also controls who control for their own dead friends,
such as “ G. P.” (George Pelham) or Hodgson, and these persistently
maintain the reality of the others. It was “ G. P.’s ” statement that
convinced Hodgson of this in his life-time, and the Hodgson control
carried on tlie behef. Mrs Sidgwick observes that if the consistency
either of “ G. P.’s ” ])ersonation, or of the personation of the spirits
he guarantees, breaks down, we are left practically without support
for the hypothesis that the controls are independent spirits. But
this would not tend to show that there was no real “ G. P.” in the
l)ackground, helping to inspire the personation of him.

Much space is devoted to showing the resemblances between Mrs
Piper’s trance and the hypnotic state as regards changes and
dissociations of consciousness. But what psychical processes are
involved in these changes we do not Icnow. We may represent it as

146]

Work in Psychical Research

some sort of shuffling or re-arrangement of centres of consciousness,
interconnected but to some extent independent, with one of them
dominant enough to keep order, as it were, and secure the kind of
stabihty that is exhibited in the trance.

Mrs Piper’s trance seems to be a sort of self-induced hypnosis, in
which her hypnotic self personates different characters, either con-
sciously or unconsciously, beheving herself to be the person she
represents, and sometimes probably in a state of consciousness
between the two. In the trance state, as often in hypnosis, her
normal powers are superior in some respects to those of her ordinary
waking state. And further she can obtain, imperfectly and frag-
mentarily, telepathic impressions. Or it may be more correct to say
that such impressions are not only received by her telepathically,
but rise partially or completely into the consciousness of the trance
state and so are recognised.

In so elusive a subject, it would be rash to try to come to a con-
clusion on this case alone. Much more study is wanted of hypnotic
and other dissociated states, and of cases of automatic writins,
especially of course where there is evidence of supernormal powers
like Mrs Piper’s.

I may add that Mrs Sidgwick’s hope of a similar psychological
study of the non-evidential matter in the trance utterances of an
automatist through whom excellent evidence has been forthcoming
was fulfilled some years later in Lord Balfour’s “ Study of the
Psychological Aspects of Mrs Willett’s Mediumship,” in vol. xhii.
This was the result of many years’ observation of the case, with
which Mrs Sidgwick also was well acquainted, as Lord Balfour was
with the case of Mrs Piper ; so that the two reports are in a sense
supplementary to one another and form together a most interesting
disquisition on what Lord Balfour calls “ jDrocess,” — the constitution
of the Ego and the relationship to one another of different centres
of consciousness in the same individual. The two reports together
are all the more instructive because of the contrast between the two
medimns, — Mrs AVillett being a highly intelligent and well-read
woman, with a wide experience of life, probably incapable of
harbouring in any stratum of consciousness the kind of illiterate
nonsense that was not infrequent in Mrs Piper’s trance.

A similar but less comprehensive stndy of the trance phenomena
of Mrs Osborne Leonard was made by Mr Drayton Thomas in Pro-
ceedings, vol. xxxviii.

Alice Johnson : Airs Henry Sidgivick’s [part

Abridged Edition of “ Phantasms ”

In 1918 Mrs Sidgwick brought out a revised and abridged edition
of Phantasms of the Living, which had long been out of print. The
two bulky volumes were now reduced to one. The abridged version
omitted the important “ Note on Witchcraft ” by Gurney, mentioned
above, a long “ Note on a Suggested Mode of Psychical Interaction ”
by Myers, the substance of which was later embodied in Human
Personality, and the Supplement, containing the less well-evidenced
cases. Otherwise the book was substantially as the authors had left
it, no new cases or new discussions being added.

The original book must always rank as a classic of psychical
research, but the general reader may find it convenient to have an
abridgment of it, selected by so expert a researcher.

“ Book-Tests ”

An important new line of research, the so-called “ Book-Tests,”
was the next subject taken up by Mrs Sidgwick. These were ob-
tained through the mediumship of Mrs Osborne Leonard, which was
first brought to the notice of the Society by Miss Radclyffe-Hall and
Lady Troubridge in 1918, and which stimulated the interest of many
members who had not hitherto taken an active part in the work.

A full report of their sittings by Miss Radclyffe-Hall and Lady
Troubridge was published in 1919 [Proceedings, vol. xxx, pp. 339 ff.).
Later Mrs Leonard’s control “ Feda ” gave to these ladies and other
S.P.R. sitters correct statements relating to passages in books
unseen by the medium ; and “ An Examination of Book-Tests
obtained in sittings with Mrs Leonard ” by Mrs Sidgwick was
published in 1921 in vol. xxxi, pp. 242 ff.

Two typical instances may be cited in brief :

[a) The sitter, Mrs Salter, was alone with the medium, and her
father. Dr. Verrall, purported to communicate. “ Feda ” indicated
a certain row of books in Miss Radclyffe-Hall’s flat, where Mrs
Leonard had never been, and said that in the second book from the
left, on the first i^age, there was a kind of play on Miss Radclyffe-
Hall’s surname ; that the first j)age was not a full page, but only
part.

There was nothing relevant in the second book on the shelf ; but
if “ second book ” is taken to mean second from the one previously
mentioned by “ Feda ” — which there is some reason to beheve was
the communicator’s method of counting — this was found to be II
Suloito della Contessa Alaffei. Only half the first page is covered with

146]

Work in Psychical Research

print and the word Salotto occurs in it six times. The Italian
dictionary consulted gives it under Sola, thus : “ Sola, dim ; salotto,
etc., a hall or saloon.” Mrs Salter had never been in the flat and
knew nothing about the books there.

(6) Sitters, Miss Radclyffe-Hall and Lady Troub ridge. “ Feda ”
indicated a certain shelf and the fifth book from the left, and said
that on p. 14 something gave her a feeling of heat about halfway
down the page ; it might be heat like a hot fire, or it might be great
anger spoken of as heat. The book indicated had not been read or
opened by the sitters. Its pages have thirty-three fines. On 1. 16 of
p. 14 occur the words “ ardent patriot,” expressing heat in the
metaphorical sense ; on 1. 15 of p. 15 occurs the word “ bonfire,”
giving heat in the literal sense. Pp. 14 and 15 face each other, and
when the book is closed, the words “ ardent ” and “ bonfire ”
almost touch.

It is clear that correct statements of this kind cannot be explained
by telepathy from the sitter, since the facts are not within his know-
ledge. It looks more like pure clairvoyance — knowledge of physical
appearances outside the range of any one’s senses — but if so, is it
“ Feda ’’who has this power, or some disembodied spirit who com-
mimicates it to her ?

IMrs Sidgwick analysed about 532 cases, obtained from thirty-four
sitters, and concluded that 92 could be classified as successes, and
100 approximately so, in all about 36 per cent. But she remarks
that any classification is difficult and uncertain, and that the degree
of success beyond chance must vary enormously in different cases,
so that any calculation of probabilities — such as can be applied to
simple experiments in telepathy — is out of the question.

Sometimes details about the surroundings of the book were given,
which might be explained by telepathy from the sitter ; but cases
where the sitter knew" nothing of the surroundings were sometimes
equally successful. Another question might be whether the know-
ledge was possessed by any living person who might be siq^posed in
touch with the sitter or wuth the medium. Again, was the knowledge
shown within the possession of the communicator before his death ?
If so, it would be evidence of his surviving memory.

It is only after exhausting these possibilities that we are driven to
assume pure clairvoyance. “ Feda ” ascribes it to clairvoyance
exercised by the communicator. There may be three sources of

Feda’s ” supernormal knowledge — the sitter, other living persons
and the memory of the communicator — all working together, or any
two of them may work and fortify one another.

Some of the most interesting cases are cited in full and carefully

Alice Johnson : Mrs Henry Sidgwich’s [part

analysed. Clairvoyance is a matter which is at present disconnected
with all our established knowledge, and is therefore hard to beheve.
And it is very hard to estimate whether the successes of the Book-
Tests are more than we can suppose chance to have produced. On
the whole, however, Mrs Sidgwick thought that they afforded a
prima facie case for clairvoyance. They also suggest a close con-
nexion between telepathy and clairvoyance, — not a new theory, but
one which might lend itself to practical experimentation. E.g. if
telepathy operates in the finding of the book and the perception of
its surroundings, it might facilitate the clairvoyant perception of the
inside of the book which sometimes follows.

The paper includes a “ Note on Chance in Book-Tests,” giving the
results of an experiment by Mrs Sidgwick to see whether, in specified
places in twelve books taken at random, a passage would occur
corresponding to a “ Test ” given by “ Feda ”. Only one of the
twelve was found to have any relevance to it. These experiments,
though too few to be conclusive, tend to show that chance is not an
easy explanation of “ Feda’s ” successes.

Imitation Book-Tests

In a later volume (xxxiii, jjp. 606 ff.) Mrs Sidgwick reports on a
series of experiments, in which sixty members of the Society took
part, to test chance in book-tests. They were asked to choose ten
books at random, and after doing so, were given three “ tests ” and
asked to search for each of the three in a specified part of each book.
E.g. is there a passage which is particularly relevant to your father
in the top quarter of p. 60 in each book ? In all, therefore, 1,800
passages were examined, 600 for each “ test.”

The experimenters recorded the results in detail, stating whether or
not they considered the “ tests ” successful, i.e. whether the passages
were relevant or not. But naturally different people had different
standards of what shoidd count as a success. So another member of
the Society, Colonel C. E. Baddeley, undertook to analyse all the
results and draw up percentages of success or failure. In order to
compare these chance results with the successful Book-Tests ob-
tained through Mrs Leonard, as calculated by Mrs Sidgwick, it was
necessary to know how her standard of “ success ” compared with
Colonel Baddeley ’s. So she also studied all the “ sham ” ones in the
same way. She agreed with him on the whole, but thought he
tended to allow things to count too much as success. This, however,
woidd be a fault on the right side in an experiment of this kmd,
since, in relation to real Book Tests, it would allow chance to
account for more than it proI)ably did.

146]

Work in Psychical Research

As mentioned above, Mrs Sidgwick calculated that about 36 per
cent, of the Leonard Book-Tests were successful. By as nearly
as possible the same standard the success of the sham tests was
4-7 per cent. Thus, as far as can be estimated from these experi-
ments, the Leonard results are considerably above what chance
would be likely to produce.

New Collection of Phantasms of the Living

In 1922 Mrs Sidgwick made a collection of cases of telepathy
which had been printed in the Journal only and were therefore not
available for the general reader. It is contained in a paper of about
400 pp. in vol. xxxiii, entitled “ Phantasms of the Living : An
Examination and Analysis of Cases of Telepathy between Living
Persons printed in the Journal of the Society since the publication
of the book Phantasms of the Living in 1886.”

The period covered is from June 1886 to the end of 1920, and the
collection is made from seventeen volumes of the Journal, omitting
all cases in which the interval between the experience and its record
exceeds five years, and those in which the evidence seemed too weak
to be worth publishing. A Table of Contents at the end explains
the classification adopted and makes it easy to look up any type of
case wanted.

It forms a complete treatise on Telepathy, being a continuation to
date of the original Phantasms of the Living in the light of the
research that had been going on since the publication of that book.
It appeals once more for the continued collection of new first-hand
material, of which there can never be too much, if it is well-evidenced.

Hindrances to Telepathy

A paper by Mrs Sidgwick on “ Hindrances and Complications in
Telepathic Communication ” was published in 1923 (vol. xxxiv, pp.
28 ff.). She points out that the confusion so often apparent in
“ messages ” from the dead is not by itself a reason for doubting their
validity, since communication from the dead is presumably of the
same nature as telepathic communication between the living, which
frequently exhibits similar confusion. Cases of telepathy between
the hving are here examined from the point of view of imperfection
of transmission, in order to discover, if jjossible, what causes the
imperfection.

We have no evidence of obstruction outside the two communi-
cating minds, such as we should have if the transmission were

90 Alice Joli7ison : Mrs He^iry Sidgioick’s [part

physical, like the passage of light. The difficulties, then, must be
sought for in the mental processes of the two individuals.

One important difficulty seems to lie in the passage of the idea
from one stratum of the mind to another. We get glimpses of double
mentation at work in dreams, in automatic writing, in sensory
hallucinations, such as crystal visions, in hypnotism, etc. In
emerging from a subliminal stratum, an idea or intention may be
curtailed or distorted. This can be seen clearly in cases where there
is no question of telepathy ; e.g. when a hypnotised subject is given
a verbal order to do or experience something on waking, such as to
see a specified vision in a crystal. Sometimes the vision may be seen
but not recognised. For in.stance, Myers told a hypnotised subject
(P.) the story of Robinson Crusoe finding the footprint and fearing
savages, and said he would see it in a glass of water. Awakened and
set before the glass, P. at once exclaimed, “ Why, there’s Buffalo
Bill ! He’s dressed in feathers and skins round him ; almost like a
savage. He’s walking about in a waste place. I can see something
else coming from another part — it’s a blackie. Look at them now,
how they’re arguing ! Buffalo Bill and his black man.”

P. failed to see the foot-mark, on which Myers had chiefly dwelt.
He had read Robinson Crusoe, but was more familiar with Buffalo
Bill, who was at the time touring the country with his show of the
Wild West of America.

Here the vision seemed clear as far as it went, with the important
omission of the foot-mark, but the message which reached the supra-
liminal was misinterpreted by it. It would appear that an idea
successfully impressed upon one stratum of consciousness is liable
to get distorted before it emerges in another. Possibly all telepathic
communications first reach the subhminal and have to run the gaunt-
let of j^assage from one stratum to another before they can emerge.
Even with normal transmissions there may be a want of under-
standing between two parts of our mind, as in misspellings of
familiar words and inabihty to remember familiar names.

In telepathy between the living, we have of course the advantage
of being able to get information about the working of both minds,
while in the case of “ messages ” from the dead, we have no means
of knowing what passes on the supposed agent’s side, but can only
surmise from the contents of the message as received. Even in
messages from the living we can rarely discover anything of the
mental working of the agent, except in experimental cases ; and of
these the most instructive for the present purpose will be the
partially successful ones ; for if the idea gets through promptly and
completely, no light will have been thrown on the obstacles that may

146]

Work in Psychical Research

have been overcome. On the other hand total failures cannot reveal
what the obstacle is.

Voluntary effort on the part of the agent to transmit some par-
ticular idea is not always necessary : the percipient may have im-
pressions corresponding unmistakably to his thoughts, and here the
activity seems on the percipient’s side. In Mr and Mrs Newnham’s
experiments, he asked mental questions and her automatic writing
made appropriate responses, indicating that she had apprehended
the question subhniinally. But if the question related to something
that only he knew, her answer was only slight and fragmentary ;
though generally appropriate, it was not correct, but pure invention.
This suggested that the subliminal was unwilhng to confess its
ignorance and tried to invent something plausible, as mediums often
do. That this attempt at deception was not the work of some
outside spirit seems clear from the facts that the writing intelligence
always asserted that it was Mrs Newnham herself, and that no true
information rmknown to both of them was ever given.

Sometimes when a picture is to be mentally transferred, the per-
cipient may see some items and misinterpret them. Thus, in the
Brighton experiments, a sailing boat on the sea appeared as cliffs
seen above the boat, then joining the boat, and at last identified as
its sails. Again, a snake with its tongue out was seen as something
hke a snake and a snake charmer playing with it, — an added detail
clearly due to association of ideas in the percipient. Since associa-
tion of ideas plays a large part in normal perception and in the
interpretation of perceptions, we might expect the same to occur in
supernormal perception.

In fact we often find that telepathic messages, when received, are
incomplete ; they may be received piecemeal and the percipient may
fail to grasp the total idea It is to be supposed that the same kind
of failure may occur with messages from the dead.

Analysis of Professor Murray's Experiments

Mrs Sidgwick’s examination of telepathy was continued in 1924
in a “ Report on further Experiments in Thought Transference
carried out by Professor Gilbert Murray ” in Proceedings, vol. xxxiv,
pp. 212 ff. She remarks that these are perhaps the most important
experiments ever brought to the notice of the Society, both on
account of their frequently brilliant success and on account of the
eminence of the experimenter.

They were carried out with Professor Murray’s own family, some-
times joined by friends ; Professor Mirrrav himself was generally

92 Alice Johnson : Mrs Henry Sidgwick’s [part

the percipient, and one of his daughters the agent. Though he spoke
of his attempts to reproduce the agent’s ideas as guesses, no mere
guessing could have produced the amount of success obtained.
Telepathy or some other agency must have been at work. Professor
Murray distingmshes between three things — the impressions that
seem to come to him from without, his inferences from these im-
pressions, and his guesses to sup})lement them. The impressions,
which are probably telepathic, differ in intensity and clearness, and
the one which is strong and clear and comes promptly is usually, but
not always, right. Sometimes a faint and dim and slowly developing
impression may be equally correct.

Probably the impression generally comes in a mixed way, partly
as an idea not of a sensory kind, and partly as a visual or auditory
image. The different avenues used are not always distinguishable
by the percipient, and their use ju'obably depends on the make-up
of his own mind, whether he is a good visualiser and so forth. Grant-
ing that the subliminal mind plays an important part, we see that
error may come in at four stages : — the impression may get into the
subliminal in any degree of incompleteness ; it may there be further
distorted by false associations and inferences ; loss may occur again
in emerging into the supraliminal, through inhibition or otherwise ;
finally, the supraliminal may reject some images and misinterpret
others.

If telepathic impressions come through the subliminal, one im-
portant quality in a good telepathic percipient may be the power of
drawing easily on the contents of his own subliminal.

These experiments are instructive for comparison with the auto-
matic scripts containing cross-correspondences, because the experi-
menters, like our automatists, are persons of wide reading and
strongly marked literary tastes, so that quotations and literary
associations tend to crop up abundantly in their minds.

In 1932, the year of the Society’s Jubilee, when Sir Oliver Lodge
was President, Mrs Sidgwick was elected by the Council President
of Honour. It was then that she wrote the History of the S.P.R.,
referred to above, and its concluding sentence, that, upon the
evidence before her, she herself was “ a firm believer both in survival
and in the reahty of communication l^etween the living and the
dead,” must be fresh in the memory of all of us.

As long as her strength permitted, she went up to London for
S.P.R. meetings and wrote occasional book-reviews and minor
articles. She read zealously all the Society’s publications, as well as

146]

Work in Psychical Research

any important new books on psychical subjects. As a member of
the Committee of Reference, she studied carefully the proofs of
articles for the Proceedings and was in constant consultation with
the Society’s officers and other leading workers.

Her continued openness to new conceptions was remarkable.
“ If this is so, we may have to revise our ideas,” she used to say, and
clearly there was no opinion that she would not have revised, if the
freshly alleged facts had satisfied her critical mind. There are, one
hopes, many people of whom one could say the same, but not, I
think, many who, like her, are always looking out eagerly for new
facts — whatever they may lead to — whose intellectual curiosity
remains insatiable up to the end of so long a fife. She died on
Rebruary 10, 1936, within about a month of her ninety-fixst birthday.

Yet it must not be supposed that the essence of her nature was
pure intellect. She valued human beings far more than ideas, or
even than the causes for which she would spend herself. Her own
standard seemed above the reach of ordinary mortals, but she had
an infinite tolerance and charity for other people’s weaknesses, and
a most generous appreciation of their capacities and achievements.
Her Life might perhaps be srmimed up in the words :

“ Mercy and truth are met together ;
righteousness and peace have kissed each other.”

W. H. Salter : Mrs Heiiry Sidgwich’s

[PART*^

SUPPLEMENT

[As an Officer of the Society who had been associated with Mrs
Sidgwick in its most recent work, Mr Salter undertook to supplement
Miss Alice Johnson’s paper ; and Mr Besterman begged the Editor
to include in the Memorial Part a tribute “ from the youngest
generation.”]

By W. H. Salter

A WORD should be said about the very great services Mrs Sidgwick
rendered to the Society as Hon. Secretary during the difficult period
which followed the War. Several of her most important contri-
butions to Proceedings were made during this time, but I shall
confine myself to the administrative side of her work.

The emotional after-effects of the War brought into the Society
a large number of new members with no knowledge of its past
history and traditions, and, in many cases, no deep-seated or en-
during desire for research on scientific lines. At the same time new
types of phenomena were requiring investigation. It was therefore
essential that the direction of the Society’s affairs, so far as they
depended on any one individual, should be in the hands of one who
had the fullest possible knowledge of past events in the Society,
and a very firm grip of the essential principles of psychical research,
combined with the will and the abihty to apply these principles to
the new problems that were arising. In the possession of the required
qualifications Mrs Sidgwick stood, of course, without a rival, but the
resignation by Miss Alice Johnson of the post of Research Officer
during the War, and shortly afterwards the resignation by Mr
Feilding of the post of joint Hon. Secretary considerably increased
the burden of administrative work thrown upon her. If in the
circumstances existing she were to continue to hold the post, she
would necessarily be immersed in a mass of petty administrative
detail, from which any one of her age, with her record of service, and
with the pressure of the research work she was doing, might reason-
ably have claimed to be excused. With characteristic willingness,
however, and disregard of her own convenience, she consented to
remain in an office which she held and the duties of which she carried

146] Work in Psychical Research

out with the greatest thoroughness imtil within a few years of her
death.

Miss Newton, who as Secretary was brought into the closest
possible touch with Mrs Sidgwick, has emphasised in conversation
with me how difficult were the years that immediately followed the
War, and has expressed her opinion that nobody except Mrs Sidg-
wick could have carried the Society through them with success. This
I can readily accept, as it tallies with my own experience as a col-
league of Mrs Sidgwick from early m 1921, when I became Hon.
Treasurer. It was an immense support to me in my inexperience
then, and later when I became joint Hon. Secretary, to be able to
rely in any difficulty that might arise on her experience and advice.
However small the matter on which she was consulted, her advice
was invariably prompt, clear, supported by cogent arguments and
patently the product of much careful thought. Whatever storms
arose (and for many years after the War the Society encountered
rough weather) she steered us through them with imperturbable
cheerfulness and confidence.

Perhaps in those years none of Mrs Sidgwick’s quahties was of
more service to the Society than her absolute candour. She regarded
every piece of work objectively ; whoever did it, if she had to give
her opinion on it, she gave it, kindly of course, but so as to leave no
doubt whether she thought the work well or badly done. The
impersonality of her judgments was quite compatible, and in fact
associated in a high degree, with sympathetic understanding of
people whose opinions and outlook differed widely from her own.

Since the War a new generation of researchers has grown up in
our Society. There is not, I suppose, one of them who would not
readily acknowledge that his warmest encouragement, his soundest
advice had come from Mrs Sidgwick, and that she had been a
constant inspiration to good work, not only by her long record of
achievement, but by her eagerness to collaborate actively in any
new and promising research. If any of them ever felt unpatience
at the caution of her methods, they soon reahsed that the “ guides’
pace ” she set was a measure of the height of her aims and of her
resolve to attain them.

In the beginning of 1932, the Society’s Jubilee year, increasing
physical infirmity caused her to resign office as Hon. Secretary, but
she became President of Honour jointly with Sir Ohver Lodge for
that year. Her Jubilee paper was the last of a series of contributions
to Proceedings, in which the whole history of our Society may be
traced. She still remained an active member of the Committee of
Reference, and only a few weeks before her death, when the Council’s

Th. Besterman : Mrs Henry Sidgwich’s [part

draft Annual Report for 1935 was read to her, she took great interest
in it and said she thought it very satisfactory and encouraging.

It is the greatest gratification to us all to know that she, in whose
life the Society had played so large a part, should have been able to
retain to the last her confidence in its future.

By Th. Besterman

I FIRST met Mrs Sidgwfick in the autumn or winter of the year 1926.
She had already entered her ninth decade, and I looked at this great
lady of whom I had read and heard so much across the chasm of
nearly sixty years. It was a Committee Meeting at which somewhat
uninteresting technical details were being discussed. Mrs Sidgwick
said little, but she was very attentive and her gently, but accurately
observant eyes studied the speaker. It was clear that she was
considering not only the merits of the case, but also the motives
and intentions of the proposer. At the end of the meeting Mrs
Sidgwick, having said less but thought more than anyone else,
quietly put forward a motion which met the situation to everyone’s
satisfaction.

In the following years this experience was often repeated and this
first impression was as often confirmed. Mrs Sidgwick put her faith
more in reflection than in superfluous discussion, and character was
at least as important to her as ability. This feehng was in a sense
a projection of her own personality, for Mrs Sidgwick’s greatness
was in fact due to the union in her of brilliant ability and outstand-
ing character. These things were so perfectly blended in her that
one was often at a loss whether to admire more the accuracy or the
justice of her judgment.

The accident of birth and the process of time added to Mrs
Sidgwick’s mental and moral quahties what was almost as valuable,
an exceptional range and dejith of experience. Thus it is not sur-
prising that those who had the privilege of knowing her quality took
Mrs Sidgwick as their touchstone. Certainly during the years in
which I was an official of the Society, I avoided many a hasty
decision, many an unwise step, by testing it against what I knew of
Mrs Sidgwick’s opinions. And when I did act in a manner of which
I knew she would not approve, that knowledge was the obstacle
most difficult to overcome. This was true, I think, of every one who
was capable of appreciating her singular fineness, a quality, in my
experience, peculiar to her, and one which seemed unaffected by the
passage of time.

146]

Work in Psychical Research

History will no doubt record some, at least, of the perceptible
influence exercised by Mrs Sidgwick on psychical research. Greater
even than this was her personal influence on those practitioners of
psychical research who have most usefully contributed to this
nascent science. If part of the subject matter of psychical research
ever attains to the dignity of general recognition, this result will
be due to no one individual anywhere so much as to the calm
enthusiasm, the steady persistence, the bold but sober judgment,
and the intellectual quality and charm of Eleanor Mildred Sidgwick.

- r\

iliw

i ■ 'h'-i ^" ~

5.U. ■'j’SIVo'''

■'

' ■ jli bssK

■

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Society for Psychical Research

PART 147

FURTHER RESEARCH IN EXTRA-SENSOR Y
PERCEPTION

By G. N. M. Tyrrell
Introduction

Since the inquiry into modes of perception other than those recog-
nised as “ normal ” began to develop an experimental side, the
tendency has been for it to become more and more a quantitative
research. This appears to be due to the necessity for so framing
experiments that statements made by the subjects can be easily
verified and an estimate made of the probability that such state-
ments, when true, are attributable to chance. Such a method of
experiment entails the use of events which are quite trivial, easily
controllable and amenable to calculation ; and, since an ordinary
pack of cards provides such a series of events, playing-cards have
been used by several investigators in this field.

The history of the piece of research, which is to be described here,
began with some experiments with cards, which were made in the
year 1921. In that year the writer had already met Miss G. M.
Johnson, who was then a girl, taking no particular interest in scienti-
fic research or even in psychic matters, although she possessed in a
half unconscious way very remarkable psychic gifts. The experi-
ments resulted from a long stay, which Miss Johnson made with the
writer and his family in the country, and an account of them is to be
found in the Report which appeared in the Journal S.P.R. for June,
1922, under the title The Case of Miss Nancy Sinclair. This Report
was published anonymously because at the time. Miss Johnson did
not wish, for personal reasons, to disclose her identity. The part
which is especially relevant to the present issue is the account given

(t. N . 71/. Tyrrell : Fnriher Research

[part

oil |)|). .‘51 8-1)27 of seven experiments witli cards, wliicli jirovide
stroiiff evidencic for clairvoyance ; wfdle three of tliem have the
a.ppi'a, ranee of being precognitive. Tliese experiments were re-
markable because of the many signs which accompanied them,
showing till' subject’s departure from tlie normal state of conscious-
ness, and the ])eculiar and characteristic subjective side of tliem
which showed a, state as far removed as could bo from mere guessing.
'I’hese card exjieriments form an early, though brief, attempt to
apply the (piantitative method to hlxtra, -Sensory Perception, and
the figures show that the results cannot possibly have been due to
chaiice.

d’o summarise these exjieriments roughly. Miss Johnson on seven
occasions gave the denominations, but not the suits, of from five to
eight consecutive cards in a jiack of ordinary jilaying-cards. In the
four clairvoyant cases, I had shuffled the jiack very carefully, unseen
by mysidf or by anyone else, just before she gave them. In the three
jirecognitive caaes, I shuffled the jiack in the same way, but after
the. cards had beim given. On being turned iiji, the cards jiroved to
be nearly a.II right, excejit for some minor ei'rors. Details will be
found in tlu' Itejiort.

Tak'ing all these' seven ('xjieriments together, the jiroba.bility that
they are due to chance is of the order tluit is to say, the odds

against their being chance is about a billion, billion, billion to one;
and the exjihination that Miss Johnson did them by a sujierlative feat
of conjuring (which sei'ins the only alternative to genuine. Extra-
iSensory Percejition) will jirobably not a.jijiea.l to many, and is quite
out of the (piestion for myself, jiartly because I know that Miss
Johnson cannot conjure in the very simjilest way and would not if
sh(' could, and jiartly because I had my eyes fixed on the cards every
monu'nt after the shuffling had been done.

Ih'fore leaving these early exj eriments, I should like to call atten-
lion fo a, curious point about the last one (ji. 324). If we a.cccjit
Miss .lolmson’s word about this ('xjieriment, a. seipiencc of ciglit
cards, jm'viously given, turned uji in the shuffled jia.ck, not merely
one(', but twice on two consecutive da.ys. If. is curious to note this ;
but the eviih'uce is not strong enough to la.y much stress on.

Aftc'r f.his, ma.ny years ela.jised during which cire.umsta.nces
prevented the r('Suni|ition of ('.xjierimeid.s between Miss Johnson
and myself. Since, as my colleague and the [irincijia,l jiereijiient in
the j)i-('sent ('xpi'riments, she is fo figure hirgely in the following
a.ecount, it has bec'ii f hought suitabh' t hat a h'w words (h'seribing hei'
jiaranormal gift, as it disjilays itself in ('vi'ryday life, should be
inserted here.

147]

in l<Jxfra-8ensori/ Perceplio)/

101

Miss Johnson jjossesses a well-balanced mind, strong common
sense and a sceptical tendency towards the general mass of medinm-
istic and spiritualistic phenomena. She can j^roduce automatic
writing easily at will but no very striking material has ever emerged
from it. She can also enter states of trance which tend to maintain
their own independence and are largely resistant to suggestion and
impervious to attem])ts at communication by the operator. She has
no “ control.” She possesses also a general faculty which may be
called “ paragnostic,” “ intuitive,” “ extra-sensory-perceptual ” or
whatever the reader chooses, but which is certainly a “ normal ”
factor in her psychological constitution in the sense that it is con-
stantly present and ]>lays what is, for her, an indispensable role in
the affairs of daily life. This facidty j)rovides her with a kind of
half-realised “ knowledge ” of things and events which, though
seldom clearly present in the field of normal consciousness, is never-
theless powerful enough to determine many of her actions, which it
seems to direct from a seat somewhere on the fringe of consciousness.
It is of the greatest practical utility and everything seems to lie
within its scope, from the making of an important decision to the
finding of some trifling object.

It would be useless here to give exam])les of the ])ractical working
of this faculty, interesting thougli such examples are, for they occur
spontaneously and cannot as a rule t)e clearly attested by iiule{)en-
dent witnesses or clearly proved to l>e beyond the range of chance.
Their power to convince de])cnds upon their cumulative effect when
seen at close range, and still moj'e upon tlieir ])ractical utility.
The pragmatic test is probably the most convincing to common sense,
but not to the critic who stands aloof. A demonstration of the
wide-spread success of a faculty in matters of daily life is apt to
call forth the criticism that the detailed items of it are not logically
perfect as evidence : while the production of a logically perfect case
calls forth the opposite criticism that no single case can be convincing
unless it is shown to belong to a wide-sjtread genus. And so the
pendulum swings backwards and forwards between two different
conceptions of evidence.

Thus, it will probably be more useful to describe here the sub jective
aspect of Miss Johnson’s facidty, since, if her experiences are reliable,
their coincidence with events which seem to be j)aranormal on other
grounds constitutes in itself evidence of a different kind ; and Miss
Johnson, being an unemotional subject, may lie taken to bo reliahle
in the account which she gives of her feelings, ddie following extracts
from a paper which she read to the 8.T.li. on :^9th January, Id-'h),
will serve to illustrate this subjective aspect. “ The supernormal,”

102

G. N. M. Tyrrell : Further Research

[part

she says, “ is stamped with a feeling which is like nothing else. This
stamp or feeling is all-important. I invariably trust to it in the
affairs of daily life and have never known it to fail ; but it is practi-
cally impossible to describe it. All I can say is that it has a settled
feeling of finality ai)out it. It impels you and simply does not let
you doubt it. If one ever tries to go against it the feeling is strongly
unsatisfactory ; l)ut if one does as it impels, there is a very satis-
factory feeling of accomplishment and rightness.” And, with re-
gard to the experience she has of feeling a certain quality about the
])eople she meets : “ When you are in a very sensitive state, this is
like being exposed to the weather and being, in a sense, bare to the
telepathic climate. While it is true that the presence of certain
people puts you in the psychic sunshine, it is also true that the
presence of other peojjle puts you in the psychic East wind. It is
extremely difficult to explain these feelings in words. There are
some people who seem to raise me up to a height. As soon as I am
in their presence, I have a feeling of enthusiasm and happiness and
everything feels what I can only describe as ‘ light.’ There is a
feeling of rightness about it too — a satisfactory feeling of things being
as they should be. And there is more even than that. There is a
feeling of being brought into touch with reality ; and this ‘ reality-
feeling,’ if I may call it so, is the hall-mark of this kind of person ;
and also of all knowledge which comes in a genuinely supernormal
way. There is even something of this feeling of being in touch with
reality in the trivial act of opening the right box in the machine
when the success is not due to chance. But nothing which comes to
one in the normal way has this ‘ reality-feeling ’ about it.

“ And this feeling has its opposite. There is an atmosphere which
lacks all ‘ lightness,’ from which joy and enthusiasm seem to ebb
away and all seems heavy and difficult. One’s supernormal faculty
will not come into play under these conditions ; it retires into its
shell. And so one of the most important conditions, if one wishes
to get experimental results, is to encourage the former atmosphere
and to avoid the latter.”

i\Iy experience amply bears this out. The condition which Miss
Johnson here describes as “ light ” is the key to success in experi-
mental work. It is this which really matters more than anything
else ; and the investigator who is genuinely searching for truth
cannot afford to ignore it. It may be that there are some people
who regard such subjective conditions as mere personal “ fancies,”
imj)roper and inimical to the impersonal dignity of scientific re-
search. If so, I am certain that such people will find that they have
sacrificed relevant facts of primary importance to conventional ideas

147]

in Extra-Sensory Perception

103

of decorum. To ignore such, facts is not only to court failure in
practice, but also to run the risk of making oneself ridiculous ; for
it is an attempt to dictate to nature and to force the facts of
psychical research to conform to ideas of what they ought to be,
instead of admitting them to be what they are. We cannot pick
and choose among the material which nature offers us. If we do,
we may find ourselves exemplifying the saying, “ Nature abhors a
mugwump.”

The reference to opening the right box alludes to the experiments
which are to be described below. Miss Johnson says that in doing
these experiments she can, as a rule, distinguish between those suc-
cesses which are due to the exercise of her own faculty and those
which are due to chance,.

It was not until the summer of 1934 that events made it possible
for Miss Johnson to rejoin me in starting again on the experimental
work which we had begun in 1921 ; and this time we were fortunate
in being able to start in London.

During the intervening years, a good deal of work on quantitative
lines had been done elsewhere, one of the most notable examples
being the experiments carried out by Dr J. B. Rhine at the Duke
University in North Carolina and published by him in America in
1934. He had used several subjects and had obtained what seemed,
in view of the previous experience of others, astonishingly high rates
of success. He had differentiated clairvoyance, as Miss Johnson and
I had also done, from a combination of clairvoyance with telepathy.

It is from Dr Rhine that I have adopted the term “ Extra-
Sensory Perception,” using it to cover all modes of cognition which
are paranormal ; and for brevity I shall in future refer to it by its
initials, E.S.P.

In October 1934 I was particularly struck by a feature in Miss
Johnson’s faculty, viz. the extreme satisfaction — one might almost
say the excitement of satisfaction — which accompanied the finding
of any lost object. If one could create such an excitement, even in a
mild way, and make the condition of its satisfaction the performance
of some experiment on a measurable basis, it seemed that it might
be possible to harness it in the work of demonstrating E.iS.P. It was
this which led me to construct, in the Autumn of 1934, an apparatus
in which a pointer, representing the hidden object, was thrust into
one of five small boxes from behind, while the subject raised the lid
of one of the boxes from in front, trying to find in which box the
pointer was hidden. It was easy with this arrangement to observe
successes and failures, while the “ finding interest ” was sustained
through series of trials which were carried out with great rapidity.

104 0. N . M. Tyrrell : Further Research [part

A description of these experiments and their resnlts was puldished
in the Journal S.P.R. for April, 1935.

The experiments now to be described were carried on from the
point where this Report comes to an end. They include the exten-
sion of Miss Johnson’s work to trials with other agents or operators ;
the tests of other subjects besifles herself ; some experiments with
cards, and the construction and employment of a more elaborately
developed machine arising out of the simple box-apparatus worked
with the pointer. These experiments are given in the historical
order in which they occurred, and the reader must understand that
the progress of events rvas more in the nature of an unplanned ad-
venture than of a previously thought out experiment. The new
apparatus was partly improvised as events moved on, and this,
combined with the constantly fluctuating rate of scoring, makes it
very rlilficult to present the resrdts in a clear and logical way. I can
only hope that the development of events will Ije sufficiently in-
telligible in the account that follows.

The Quantitative Method of Experiment

This method received a great impetus when Miss Ina Jephson
published her Report on the Evidence for Clairvoyance in Card-
Guessing in Proceedings S.P.R. 109. She has earned the gratitude
of all workers in this field by the alile way in which she showed that
the question of chance can only be dealt with by the systematic
use of the theory of probability : and in doing so she strengthened
this research at its weakest point, for an unknown chance-factor has,
in the past, rendered many results in psychical research nebulous,
and has given the scientific mind an excuse for ignoring the subject.

The quantitative principle may be applied to the field of Extra-
Sensory Perception in two ways : either by using (1) the Collective
method of exjierinient or (2) the Individual method.

The Collective method aims at flinging a net as widely as possible
over all and sundry ; in pooling the information thus caught and in
sifting it for significance by mathematical analysis. The Individual
method, on the other hand, aims at making a close-range study of
one, or at most of two or three, specially selected subjects. Both
methods, no doubt, have their uses and may be distinguished as
belonging to their respective fields.

(1) The Collective Method. This appears to be applicable to two
purposes ; (a) as a means for testing the theory that E.S.P. may be
a facidty .spread widely and evenly amongst mankind, but present
in each individual only in a small degree. Then a large number of

105

147] in Extra-Sensory Perception

trials will be needed to reveal tlie faculty and these will best be
obtained by pooling the results from a number of subjects. (6) As a
means for testing how the faculty is distributed among mankind, if
it should prove not to be equally possessed by all.

(1) (a) An important point to notice is that, if the theory of the
even spread of the faculty is not true and if there should be a few
individuals here and there who possess it in fairly marked degree,
while there are hundreds who do not possess it at all, then the Col-
lective method will merely mask the fact of its existence by swamping
the scores of those who possess it with the merely chance scores of the
majority who do not.

If any individual subject scores well above chance expectation
when tested alone, there is no reason whatever for including such a
subject in a group. To include a subject, who scores well alone, in a
group, may easily lead to an absurdity : for if the group is large
enough, and entirely composed of non-scorers except for the one
good subject, it may easily happen that the latter’s score is not
greater than could be accounted for by chance within the large,
collective total. The verdict of the collective experiment would
then be “ probably chance ” ; but the verdict of the individual
experiment would be “ certainly not chance.” It is clear that the
collective verdict in such a case would have to be rejected, for it
would be absurd to claim that an experimental fact could be altered
by merely placing it in association with a number of other dis-
connected facts. By including the subject in a number of different
arbitrary groups, the verdict could be made to go, now one way and
now the other, and the results of an experiment would become
fluid instead of fixed. The probability that a George Washington
will speak the truth is not affected by thinking of him in connection
with any number of liars. Therefore it is not wise to include a sub-
ject who scores alone in any kind of mass-experiment.

(1) (b) The use of the Collective method for discovering the
distribution of the faculty of E.S.P. amongst mankind raises two
difficulties : (i) Suppose that a group of subjects show collective
significance and only slight individual significances. It will be said
that there will be a danger in accepting the latter as genuine unless
they are much greater than can reasonably be referred to chance
witiiin a block of results of that size. But, if it is illegitimate to
pick out the best scorers from among the group as the possessors of
E.S.P. faculty, how can the Collective method help to tell us any-
thing about the distribution of the faculty ? Apparently, the highest
scorers would have to be abstracted from the grouj) and retested
individually with much larger numbers of trials. In this way, also.

lOf) G. N. M. Tyrrell : Further Research [part

good siil)jects miglit l>e discovered ; l)ut it would l)e a laborious
way of doing it, and not nearly so practical, one would tliirdc, as
2>ersonal inquiry based on conunon sense, (ii) The distribution of
E.S.P. involves the cpiestion : “ What percentage of the population
possesses the faculty ? ” Is this question capable of receiving a
definite answer ? Put in this form, it makes the assumption that the
faculty is one which has an objective fixity, like being over six feet
high or weighing over twelve stone. But experience points to the
faculty as being something dependent on variable mental and physio-
logical conditions in the subject. Although it is no doubt true to
say that, on the whole, some jjeople possess the faculty in a more
marked degree than others, yet there is no reason to expect that its
distribution could lie expressed in any satisfactory way as a per-
centage : and it is difficult to see why importance should be at-
tached to discovering such a figure. AVhat we are concerned to know
is the existence of the faculty and something about its nature ; and
whether 10% of the population possess it in workable degree or 90%
does not seem to be of first inqrortance.

(2) The Individual Method. This, on the other hand, possesses
great advantages over the Collective. In the first place, the in-
vestigator, being in touch with the subject, is able to foster the
faculty he wishes to observe and is not obhged merely to accept the
material that chance throws in his way. With the Collective method,
he must take what comes to him and make the best of it, and unless
he is extremely fortunate, his material will probably consist of
“ low-grade ore.” Indeed, the very usefulness of the Collective
inethod depends on there being a widespread mass of low-grade ore
to deal with. But this means that j^ositive results, if there are any,
will lie near the level of significance ; and there is a, danger in relying
on small deviations from chance-expected values unless one is very
certain that the conditions assumed in the experiments hold with
great exactness. The experimenter is, indeed, likely to be right
al)out the conditions in the main ; but it is very difficult to be sure
that nothing has been overlooked which might make a small differ-
ence to the probability of success. For this reason, in the j^resent
experiments, no stress has been laid on any results unless the figure
for the anti-chance probability is a long way above the commonly
accepted significant value.

Again, the Individual method allows of the use of apparatus by
means of which each subject can be put through a very large number
of trials. But the Collective method cannot make use of any but
the simplest apparatus and hence cannot test its subjects under the
best conditions.

147]

in Extra-Sensory Perception

107

On general grounds the Individual method seems a more ])ractical
way of going to work than the Collective, for, if there is one thing
that experience reveals, it is the paramount importance for the in-
vestigator to keep in close, personal touch with his subject. Nature
has rivetted human attention on the channels of normal perce]>tion
and has placed subconscious barriers against the flow of paranor-
mally acquired knowledge into the consciousness : and, as a result,
the main task of the experimenter is to find a way of surmounting
these subconscious barriers by discovering and allaying resistances
and inhibitions and by preventing their growth. The essential
avenue of approach to psychical research is that of the psychologist
and not that of the statistician ; and the main use of mathematics
in this subject should lie for the evaluation of chance in any particular
experiment.

Tests with a Number of Sub.jects

In March 1935, I was asked by the Council of the S.P.K. to experi-
ment with a number of subjects in order to test whether the results
obtained with Miss Johnson could be repeated with others ; and also
to find out whether a repetition of experiments on the lines followed
by Dr Rhine, and published in his book Extra-Sensory Perception,
would show a percentage of successful subjects at all comparable
with his. Accordingly, between the 3rd April and 4th November,
1935, 30 subjects were tested with the Pointer Apparatus and 21 out
of the same group with “ Zener ” cards of the kind which Dr Rhine
had used in his experiments. Miss Johnson entered into these
experiments on an equal footing (at least as regards external condi-
tions) with the other subjects, working in all cases with an agent
other than myself, since all the other subjects were working with a
stranger.

These experiments were carried out at the Rooms of the S.P.R.
I regarded this use of the Pointer Apparatus as a ])reliminary test
from which to select subjects for further tests with the Electrical
Apparatus afterwards ; although there would be this additional
point of interest, to find out what percentage of a group of subjects
gathered ad hoc would be successful. It was considered unnecessary
to have witnesses at these trials, since there was no way in which the
subject could score by misusing the machine without it being
observed by the operator. Also, they were preliminary, and it would
be sulhcient to call witnesses for the final trials. The argument
that there should always be a witness, not as a check on the accuracy
of the record, but as a guarantee of the good faith of the experi-

108 G. N. M. Tyrrell : Further Research [pakt

menters, seems logically to lead to the necessity for a second witness
to guarantee the good faith of the first, and so on ad infinitum.
Thus, witnessing from this point of view becomes something of an
absurdity. In these experiments, the operator has also been the
recorder, unless otherwise stated.

With this apparatus, subjects have the oj^portunity of seeing the
pointer in the box, when the right one is opened, and so of knowing
each time they score a success : but, unless the subject is sitting
forward and the light is good, it is not always easy to see the pointer
in the fraction of a second during which the box is open. Many
subjects say that they only see the pointer occasionally, and one
subject said that she never even looked for it.

In some experiments, the signal for the subject to open a box was
given by the operator saying the word “ In ” ; in others by his tap-
ping on the floor with his foot. This is indicated in the Table by
the words “ In ” and “ Tap ” respectively.

Abbreviatio7is

In giving exjjerimental results, the following abbreviations will
be made use of ;

No. = the serial number of the result.

T = the number of Trials.

N = the number of Successes.

d = the deviation from Chance Exjjectation (above or below).

% = the Successes as a percentage of the total number of Trials.

X = the Deviation divided by the Standard Error.

P = the Probability that the result is due to Chance.

Those taking part are indicated by their initials as follows :

G.J.

Miss G. M. Johnson.

C.V.C.H.

Mr Herbert.

C.H.

Lord Charles Hope.

H. de G.S.

Mrs Salter.

G.H.

Mr Gerald Heard.

H.F.S.

Mr Saltmarsh.

G.W.F.

Mr Fisk.

G.N.M.T.

Mr Tyrrell.

The method of carrying out the experiments and of recording
them is the same as that described in the Journal S.P.R. 511 for
April 1935 on p. 56, from which the following paragraph is quoted.
“ The apparatus was placed with a strong light on the percipient’s
side. The operator thrust the pointer into one hole at a time at
random, saying the word ‘ In ’ each time. On hearing the word

147]

in Extra-Sensory Perception

109

‘ In,’ the percipient opened one of the box-lids. The oj)erator,
noticing which box the light came through, scored the result on
squared paper, making a tick for a success and a dot for a failure.”
The percipient was separated from the operator by a large wooden
screen and the sound of the pointer was rendered negligible by care-
ful padding of the boxes.

(For readers who are not conversant with mathematical symbols,
it may be as well to add that a probalhlity is always expressed in
the form of a fraction. Thus, the statement that the probability of
success is 1/5 means, in common language, that the odds against
success are 4 to 1. If the probability that a result is due to chance is
less than 0-01, it is arl)itrarily taken to be significant.

A probalhlity of 0-01 or 1 /lOO is equivalent to odds of 99 to 1
against. A probability of 0-001 or 1/1000 or 10~® is equivalent to
odds of 999 to 1 against, or approximately of 1000 to 1 against, and
so on.

The figures for P in the probability column are only approximate.
By the time we reach figures sufficiently low to be rehable, their
accuracy has ceased to matter : the order is sufficient. They are
taken from a curve plotted from tables of the Probability Integral
given in Dr R. A. Fisher’s book. Statistical Methods for Research
Workers.)

Table I

Results with the Pointer Apparatus
Date, April 3 to November 4, 1935. Operator, G.N .M.T.

No.

Subject

Conditions

Baker, Miss -

1.500

.301

+ 1

20-0

—

Tap

3’ai)

Bramlev-Moore, Mr.s

; 1600

374

+ 54:

23-4

3-37

0-0003

Carruthers, Miss -

800

165

+ 5

20-6

0-4

0-34

Coates, Miss -

800

179

+ 19

22-4

1-7

0-04

Douthett, Mrs

100

+ 6

26-0

—

Firnistone, Mrs

400

-1

19-7

—

Fisk, Mr

1600

313

~ 7

19-4

0-44

0-33

Ganz, Mrs

800

170

+ 10

21-2

0-9

0-18

Goldney, Mr.s

1200

245

+ 5

20-4

0-36

Heckle, Miss -

1400

287

-f7

20-4

0-46

0-32

In and Tap

Heckle, Mr -

1000

208

+ 8

20-8

0-63

0-46

In and Tap

Hemingway, Mrs -

2000

504

+ 104

25-2

5-81

10“8 to

ur»

Tap

Herbert, Mr -

2000

409

+ 9

20-4

0-5

0-32

Hope, Lord Charles

1.500

210

+ 10

20-6

0-6

0-27

Humphreys, Mr

100

-1

19-0

—

Hutchinson, Mrs -

3200

674

+ 34

210

1-5

0-07

Johnson, Miss

2000

494

+ 94

24-7

Op. C.V.C.H. In

»»

400

+ 9

22-2

—

Op. C.H. In

1300

351

+ 91

27-0

—

Op. H.deG.S. In

3800

902

+ 142

24-0

—

Op. G.W.F. In

>> »>

7500

18.36

+ 336

24-4

9-7

10-21

110 G. N. M. Tyrrell: Further Research [part

No.

Subject

0 '

. O

Conditions

Miller, Mr -

- 900

219

-1 39

24-3

3-25

O-(X)06

I’ap

Miller, Mrs -

- 400

20-0

—

Tap

Minns, Mrs -

- 1.500

318

+ 18

21-2

0-136

2.5

Morton, Dr -

- 1600

325

+ 5

20-3

0-3

0-39

North, Mr

- 1200

252

+ 12

21 0

0-87

0-91

Nunn, Miss -

- 2300

481

+ 21

20-9

—

Kichinond, Mr

- 400

-7

18-2

—

Hichmond, Mrs

- 800

181

+ 21

20-9

1-8

0-03

In and Tap

Tennant, Mrs

- 2300

495

+ 35

21-5

1-8

0-03

In and Tap

Tubbs, Mrs -

- 2100

433

+ 13

20-6

0-7

0-24

Turner, Miss -

- 100

_ 2

18-0

—

Varvill, Mrs -

- 3100

641

+ 21

20-7

0-9

0-16

In and Tap

Wiley, Mrs -

- 400

-3

19-2

—

There is no reason to treat these results collectively. They are
tests of individual subjects, and each test is independent of all the
others. The result shows that four of the 30 subjects have scored
significantly, while the rest have not. Nothing but confusion would
result from considering these four successful sul)jects in connection
with a group. The significant results are Nos. 2, 12, 21 and 22 ; and
the two outstanding ones are Nos. 12 and 21, obtained by Mrs
Hemingway and Miss Johnson resj^ectively. Miss Johnson’s results
were oljtained with four different operators.

It may be as well to insert here the com]>lete figures of Miss John-
son’s scores with o])erators other than G.N.M.T. There were six of
these ; but two of them experimented with her when acting as
witnesses in her previously reported experiments, and so have not
been included in the above Table. When they are included, the
totals with all operators other than G.N.M.T. are as follows :

Table 11

Pointer Apparatus

G.J . ivith various Operators

No.

( )j)crator

.3.5

Il.F.S. -

400

121

+ 41

30-2

5-1

10-7

(bH. -

600

169

+ 49

28-1

5-0

10-’

C.V.C.H.

2000

494

+ 94

24-7

5-2

10-7

C.H. -

400

+ 9

22-2

0-13

H. de G.S. -

1300

351

+ 91

27-0

6-3

10-9

G.W.F. -

3800

902

+ 142

24-0

5-7

10-8

'fotals -

8500

2126

+ 426

25-0

11-5

10-29

This Talile shows clearly that Miss Johnson’s scoring is not the
outcome of some condition which is dependent on one particular

147]

in Extra-Sensory Percej)tion

111

operator. She has scored a long way above chance with five out of
these six operators, and the total with all operators is colossally
above chance.

The largest number of trials was done with Mr Fisk. He says, with
reference to his detailed scores, which are omitted here for lack of
space, “ If the figures are examined it will be noticed that Miss
Johnson’s scoring deteriorated somewhat after the first two weeks
of the experiment. This is probably due to the fact that I deliber-
ately tried to make it difficult for Miss J. to score. After the first
couple of sittings I realised that there was no particular object in
continuing the experiment merely to confirm the work Mr Tyrrell
had already done in over 30,000 trials. She could obviously score
well above chance with me as operator in place of Mr Tyrrell. So I
ceased to give Miss Johnson what might be termed a fair deal. I
watched her guesses very carefully to see if I could detect any
numerical habits and then did my best to thwart her. Occasionally
I purposely neglected one or two of the Ijoxes for a whole series of
trials. She however kept on scoring well above chance. I was most
successful in my opposition of 28th August when I used pre-selected
numbers that slowed down the operation very considerably. I had
also tried chaffing her a little before the trials and for this or other
reasons her score dropped to chance expectation only for that day.
On the previous day (23rd August) I had used pre-selected numbers
(but without any previous attemj^t to ruffle Miss J.’s feelings) and
after guessing two series at a chance score (20, 20) she managed a
27 and 34. Her lowest score was 14 on 24th Sept. . . . From the
result I do not see how one can escape from the conclusion that some
factor other than chance is involved.” Further, he says ; “ The
one important consideration is the question of the validity of
the assumption that chance-expectation of success in every trial
is 1/5. Is this assumption undermined by the possibility that any
particular operator may have ‘ number-habits ’ and does the per-
cipient learn these habits, consciously or unconsciously, and so
begin to score above chance expectation ? If so, the fact that
Miss J. has made high scores at once with new operators would seem
to show that if number habits exist we all of us have precisely
the same habits. AVere that so we should surely be aide to detect
them. But analysis of successive numbers chosen by different
operators has failed to show any favourite seqiiences. The fact
that Miss J. also scores with pre-selected numbers (chosen by dice
or other mechanical means) is evidence against any numl)er-haldt
explanation.”

Three different operators used lunnbers which had been selected

[part

112 G. N. AI. Tyrrell: Further Research

l)eforehand Ijy ineclianical means, with results as in following j
Table :

Tablp: III ^

Mechanically Selected Numbers with the Pointer Apparatus

No.

Operator

(> '
0

C.V.C.H. -

700

142

+ 2

20-3

“ Out.”

U.W.F. -

bSOO

301

+ 41

23-1

“ Out.”

G.N.M.T. -

704

201

+ 60

28-5

“ Home.”

4.6

Total.s

2704

644

+ 103

23-8

5-0

10-6

Two things ajipear from tliis Talkie :

(1) That this score, which is certainly not due to chance, cannot
be explained by any kind of numl)erdiabits ; for the probability of
success in this case is quite certainly 1 /5. (2) That there is a markedly
higher rate of success in No. 44 than in Nos. 42 and 43. This is
evidently due to the difference between working under the “ Home ”
condition with a familiar ojierator and working under the “ Out ”
condition with a conqiarative stranger.

Ejfect of Signal for opening Boxes

In the case of three of the best scorers, the Tapping signal was used,
viz. with Mrs Hemingway, Mr Miller and Mrs Bramley-Moore. With
some sulijects, both methods were tried alternately, and two scored
at a slightly higher rate with the Tapping than with the In signal ;
and one slightly higher with the In than with the Tapping. A fourth
scored almost at the same rate with lioth ; so that there is no evi-
dence that it made any difference in which way the signal was given.

The Question of Help from the Auditory Sense

A note may be interposed here with regard to the suggestion that
the sound of the ])ointer may give some guide to the percipient.
In March 1936 an experiment was carried out with a makeshift
])ointer consisting of a pencil with a piece of flannel wrapped round
it, and used in bare-wooden lioxes. There were slight, audible
sounds ; but the percipient could not locate them or make any use
of them. Tlierefore with the carefully padded Ijoxes in this apjjaratus
all help from supjiosed sounds must lie out of the question.

The Prohalrility of Success with the Pointer Apparatus

4die system of allowing the operator to choose his lioxes, as ofiposed
to the metliod of using jire-selected numbers, does admittedly make
^ See also footnote on p. 151.

113

147] in Extra-Sensory PercejSion

it impossible to say exactly what the distrilmtion of the choice of
boxes has been. And it may be argued that, as there is a departure
here from the random selection of pure chance, there will be a ten-
dency to raise the probability of success. This question of what
factors affect the probability of success will be gone into presently
in greater detail when the Electrical Apparatus is dealt with : but
it may be pointed out here that the scores of the 26 subjects who
have shown no sign that they are getting anything but chance results
are, in fact, clustered very closely about the value 20%. Thus, if
they are chance scorers, the probability of success when the operator
is choosing his boxes, must be very close indeed to 1/5. I am aw'are
that this argument may be attacked on logical grounds, since the
four good scorers have first been removed from the group ; but,
since the great majority scored at the same rate and this rate was
20%, it seems in accordance with common sense to conclude that
this confirms the assumption that the probability of success is
almost exactly 1/5.

Mr FisFs Metliod of Scoring

Another question which will have to be raised is whether it is
possible to score with the Pointer Apparatus according to the methotl
discovered by Mr Fisk. M'hat this method is will be explained
later d but the opinions of some operators who have used the ap-
paratus in practice as to the likelihood of scores being obtained (a) by
the operator following the habits of the subject, or (6) by the subject s
using the Fisk method, are appended here.

These operators were asked :

(1) Do you consider that the scores obtained when you operated
with the Pointer Apparatus might have been obtained liy your
choosing the boxes in the same order in which you had observed the
subject to be choosing them ?

(2) Do you think it possible that the subject could have scored
by continuing to open one box at a time until a success was obtained ;
going on to another box and continuing to open that until a success
was obtained and so on, without your observing this and avoiding
the box which was being repeatedly opened ?

The answers were :

C.V.C.H. (1) Possible, but unlikely. (2) No.

1 A full explanation of this will be given below in the section entitled A
New System of Scoring ” (p. 153) ; but it may be said here that it consisted
essentially in the repeated opening of the same box by the percipient until a
success was obtained.

114

G. N. M . Tyrrell : Further Research

[part

H. de G.S. (1)1 never consciously observed the percipient to have
a preference for any particular order and it seems to me most un-
likely that I observed anything of this kind unconsciously. I have
not the records of the experiments by me, but so far as I remember,
there was no marked improvement in the later experiments such as
one might expect if I was observing the j^ercipient’s number habits
and acting on them.

(2) I am pretty certain that if the percipient had done ay thing of
the kind I should have noticed it. It was immediately apparent to
me when the perci];>ient opened the same box twice running (which
she did from time to time). I did notice that she very rarely, if ever,
in my experiments opened the same box three times running.

G.W.F. (1) No. No preferences were observed although I was
continually on the watch for them. Had I observed any preference
it would have told against the percipient’s score as I should have been
able to “ dodge ” her more successfully.

(2) Quite impossil)le. During my experiments the percipient rarely
opened the same Ijox twice in succession and never, to the best of
my remembrance, thrice.

Results with Cards

A pack of “ Zener ” cards was used for these experiments of a kind
similar to those used by Dr Rhine and described in his book Extra-
Sensory Perception. These cards contain five diagrams, a Cross, a
Rectangle, a Circle, a Star, and Wavy Lines. There are five cards
with each diagram, making 25 cards in the pack.

The method adopted in the experiments was as follows : the
subject and operator sat in the same positions as for the Pointer
exjieriments, that is, one on each side of a narrow table divided by a
wooden screen measuring 26" by 26". The operator shuffled the
])ack of cards behind the screen before each experiment and placed
it face downwards on the table in front of him. He then said the
word “ Ready ” or “ Now ” to the percipient, and turned the cards
up one by one, placing each in turn rather noisily face upwards on
the talde and looking at it as he did so. On hearing the card put
down on the table, the percipient called and the operator entered
the call and the actual card side by side in parallel columns. The
agent did not speak at all during the experiment, and the percipient
did not see or toucli the cards. The jirobability of success was
assumed to be 1/5.

The number of trials done liy each subject varied according to the
time and opportunity which each was able to provide.

115

147] in Extra-Sensory Perception

Table IV
Cards

Dale, April 3 to November 4, 1935. Operator G.N .M.T. except where stated

No.

Subject

Conditions

Baker, Miss

375

20-0

CtaiTuthers, Miss

150

+ 1

20-6

0-20

0-42

Coates, Miss -

100

+ 3

23-0

Fi.sk, Mr

350

-6

18-3

Goldney, Mrs -

200

-4

18-0

Heckle, Mr

125

-3

17-6

Heckle, Miss -

325

+ 13

24-0

1-8

0-03

Herbert, Mr -

225

-5

17-3

Hope, Lord Ch.

275

+ 5

21-8

0-75

0-24

Hutchinson, Mrs

550

102

-8

16-7

Humphreys, Mr

+ 2

18-5

Johnson, Miss

1000

228

+ 28

22-8

2-21

0-013

Oj ierator :

G.MbF.

Minns, Mrs

-5

13-5

Miller, Mr

100

-4

16-0

Morton, Dr

300

-1

19-6

North, Mr

225

-9

16-0

Nunn, Miss

225

-7

16-8

Richmond, Mr

100

-1

19-0

Tennant, Mrs -

400

-1

19-7

Varvill, Mrs -

325

+ 16

21-8

2-22

0-013

Wiley, Mrs

100

-3

17-0

Totals

5600

1131

+ 11

20-2

It will be seen that none of the percipients has scored significantly
above chance expectation. Mrs Varvill’s and Miss Johnson’s scores
alone reach to just about the point of significance ; but neither is
high enough to support any positive conclusion. Treated collectively,
the group shows very exactly the chance rate of scoring.

Whereas I was the operator in all cases except one, Mr Fisk was
the operator in Miss Johnson’s case. He says : “ From 27th June
1935 to January 1936 I conducted a series of Card Guessing te.sts with
Miss Johnson, using Zener cards. Conditions were varied from time
to time. Thus, the percipient was sometimes screened from a view
of the cards ; sometimes she was allowed to see the card turned up
after her guess ; some tests were for pure clairvoyance, others for
clairvoyance and telepathy mixed, etc., the object being to discover,
if possible, whether Miss J. would be able, in any variation of the

IIG

G. N . M . Tyrrell : Further Research

[part

method used, to obtain a significant score. After over 1000 mixed
trials results were a little promising ; successes were significantly
above chance expectation (A = 2-66, P = 0-004) and we were en-
couraged to continue, but she did not seem to show any marked
preference for any particular set of conditions — she scored impartially
a little above chance with them all.

“ But at this juncture Mr Tyrrell and I discovered that it is possible
to obtain apparently significant scores with Zener cards under
certain conditions by using systematised guessing.” (This system
will be described later.)

Mr Fisk goes on to say : “ AVe adopted the following method.
G. W.F. shufiles and cuts the jjack of 25 cards and holds the pack face
downwards in the left hand. Sitting behind a screen with G.N.M.T.
he takes the first card, turns it over, places it face upwards on the
table and says ‘ Now.’ Miss d. — the other side of the screen and
unable to see the operation — names a card. G.N.M.T. records her
guess. The same procedure is followed right through the pack
excej)t that after the first card no word is spoken as Miss J. is able
to hear the card being placed on the table (put down purposely with
a bang). After 25 trials G.W.F. picks up the upturned pack —
taking care to preserve the order of the cards — reverses it and calls
out each card for G.N.M.T. to record against Miss J.’s guesses.
Successes are then counted. The j)ack is run through as rapidly as
G.W.F. can turn the cards.”

(The results obtained by this method are No. 57 in Table IV.)

Mr Fisk continues : “As operator I was impressed by the way
that occasionally Miss J. would score nothing at all for quite a con-
siderable number of trials and then, suddenly, begin to score at a
high and consistent rate. She seems either to be very bad or very
good at it. There was also confirmation of what Mr Tyrrell has
jireviously noted, viz. her difiiculty in expressing any paranormal
feeling in words. There were several instances when from behind
the screen I could hear her begin to say, for example, ‘ s-s-st ’
(an evident attempt to pronounce the word ‘ star ’) and then, as
though giving it up, changing to ‘ cross ’ or ‘ oblong,’ etc. In, I
think, every case her first attempt would have been correct. Some-
times, too, she would correct a call with ‘ I really meant to say so
and so ’ and here again she was generally, though not always,
correct. Needless to say corrections were not counted in the score.”

The fact that we have in G.J. a sul)ject who scores well beyond the
significance point with the Pointer and is one of the only two who
approach this point with the Cards suggests that there is something
more difficult about the card method than about the pointer method.

147]

in Extra-Sensory Perception

117

In fact, it suggests that we may have been testing the card sub] ects
under conditions which were just too difficult. If the card method is
inherently more difficult than the pointer method, it is also true that
it has not been given the advantage of “ Home ” conditions. Miss
Johnson never concentrated on them with myself as operator ; the
subjects met by appointment, doing a few trials once or twice a
week. There is evidently a great difference between what may be
called “ Home ” and “ Out ” conditions, as can be shown liy re-
verting for a moment to the figures supphed by Miss J. with the
Pointer Apparatus.

T.A.BLE V

No.

Conditions

Rate of Scoring %

G.N.M.T. operator under “ Home ”
conditions -----

31-2

Two witnesses of experiments (G.H. and
H.F.S.) act casually as operators under
“ Home ” conditions - - -

29-0

Three strangers (C.V.C.H., C.H. and
H. de G.S.) act as operators under
“ Out ” conditions - - - -

25-2

And the same thing is shown by the differences between No. 44
and Nos. 42 and 43 in Table III.

If the subjects in the Card experiments had had the opportunity
of working for some time in their home surroundings with an ex-
perimenter with whom they were quite famihar, would some of them
have scored 1 It seems not improbable. If Miss J. had worked on
the cards for some time at home, she would very likely have scored
in the end.

This raises a point which has a bearing on a possible criticism
which might be made of these experiments, viz. that they should
have been carried out on a larger scale ; and that with more exten-
sive results they would have made a more valuable comparison with
those of Dr Rhine. The figures just quoted show, however, that the
conditions possible with a single subject are not possible with a
number ; and, in fact, that it is just the difference between what has
been called “ Home ” conditions and what has been called “ Out ”
conditions that shows itself in the score. This difference may be a
subtle one and not easy to put down in black and white ; but it is
there. And the question which raises itself is whether the conditions
of Dr Rhine’s experiments were more comparable with those in
which Miss J. scored 31% or with those in which she scored 25%.

G. N . M. Tyrrell : Further Research

[part

One cannot assess an intangilile thing like a mental atmosphere.
One cannot even bring its existence home to some people ; yet it
makes all the difference to the results. But there is, I think even an
insensitive person might admit, a difference between coming once or
twice a week to a dull room to go through an experiment with a
stranger, and doing an experiment in a university as an under-
graduate "with other undergraduates. The latter may be nearer to
the “ Home ” than to the “ Out ” condition. Hence, one must ask
whether, if these experiments had l)een very much extended, they
would still have come anywhere near to being a duplication of Dr
Khine’s ? And whether any figures about the “ distrihution ” of
the faculty of Extra-Sensory Perception could safely be based on the
number of subjects who happened to score above chance. It cer-
tainly seemed to me better to take the two or three subjects who
showed 2)i’omise and to concentrate attention on them.

There is another consideration affecting the use of cards in general
which these results suggest, when taken in conjunction with the
success with the Pointer Apparatus. It seems possible that all the
card experiments so far made have begun too high up in the scale
of complexity. No doid)t, people first l)egan to use playing-cards
for telepathic experiments because they were easy to obtain : but,
with their two colours, four suits, with court cards separate from the
others and no striking differences between the arrangements of the
pips, they are obviously unsuitable for work in E.S.P. The Zener
cards are a great im])rovement on playing-cards ; but even they are
far from presenting the simplest possible kind of event for a percep-
tual faculty to take hold of. It is true, of course, that we do not know
whether clairvoyance is at all analogous in its processes with visual
or any kind of normal perception ; but we know at least that para-
normal knowledge, however acquired, must emerge ; and in its emer-
gence it usually takes sensuous forms. So that we have some ground
for supposing that the simpler the event presented for clairvoyant
cognition, the better chance it will have of getting through. Now,
the simplest event one can present would seem to be a bare contrast,
such as that l)etween black and white or light and dark, etc. ; and
this is what the Pointer Apparatus does and also the Electrical
Machine, to be described later. The Pointer Apparatus presents the
contrast between a white box empty and a white box with a dark
])ointer in it. And the Electrical Apparatus presents the contrast
between a lamp which is alight and a lain}) which is out. But the
Zener cards demand the recognition of a diagram, and, although
the diagram may be a sinijile one, it makes a much greater demand
on any ])erce})tual faculty than does a sim])lo contrast. Su]j})ose, for

147]

in Extra-Sensory Perception

119

instance, that one were asked to look at something exposed to view
for only a brief fraction of a second in order to say what it was,
would it be easier to say whether it was just something light or dark
or whether it was a cross or a circle ? Of course, it is possible that
clairvoyance may work in such a way that it does not make any
difference what the event is that is open for its percej^tion ; but it
would be on the safe side to assume that it does.

A simple contrast could be arranged with cards, no doul)t. The
subject might be asked to distinguish between a card with a white
face and a card with a black one, or between a blank card and a card
with a black disc on it : but the process of working through cards
like this would be much slower and more tedious than working
with a machine and would yield a smaller number of trials, so that it
does not seem to be worth while, if one has the easier method to
work with.

The Electrical Apparatus

General Description

The Pointer Apparatus was an experiment, obviously capable of
improvement in many respects. Some arrangement was needed
which would differentiate between Telepathy and Clairvoyance and
would select the order of events mechanically. An electric signal,
for opening the boxes, which would give an invariable sound, was
also needed ; and an automatic recorder which would work at any
reasonable speed and be fraud-proof at the same time, was badly
needed. A high speed of working was required, both to meet the
obvious psychological demand for it and also to avoid tedium, which
certainly militates against success, by inculcating a dislike which is
always the father of a resistance. The more automatic the machine
becomes the more both operator and subject are freed from the
necessity of giving attention to the purely routine part of the experi-
ments ; and, in point of fact, the speed and ease of working through
100 trials with this electrical apparatus in a few seconds is a revelation
of how simple an exjieriment in E.S.P. can be. Also, with the mach-
ine, hundreds of trials can be accumulated rapidly and easily ; and
the importance of this will be appreciated when it is realised how
slow is the process by which a new condition is accepted Ijy the
sublhninal of the subject. The tedium of going through all this with
a pack of cards might well postpone acceptance of the new condition
indefinitely.

The Pointer Apparatus had embodied at least four improvements
over the method of using cards, viz. speed, rhythm, the ])resentation
of the event as a simple contrast instead of in the comjdicated form

120 G. N. M. Tyrrell : Further Research [part

of a diagram, and the externalisatioii of the paranormal knowledge
by motor action instead of Ijy speech.

The new apparatus, now to be described, embodied these further
features : (1) An automatic Recorder marking successes and failures,
but not recording each lamp lit and each box opened. (2) Electric
lamps as the events inside the boxes, with provision for changing
these for other pieces of apparatus if desirable. (3) An electric signal
from operator to percipient. (4) A mechanical Selector for selecting
the lani])-circuits in a purely chance order. (5) An alternative
arrangement of five silent Keys by which the operator can himself
select the lamp-circuits. (6) A Commutator which could transpose
the connexions between the Keys and the Lamps in various orders,
which can be either known or unknown to the operator. (7) A
Delay-action Relay, for selecting the lamp to be lit beforehand, but
post2)oning the actual lighting until a box is opened. (8) Arrange-
ments of switches by means of which any desired condition can be
instantly brought into play. These features were not all embodied
in the aj)])aratus as it was at first constructed ; some of them were
added from time to time as ex2rerience suggested them.

Technical DescpvTption of Electrical Apparatus
(Tlie references are to Diagram A)

Percvjhent’ s Table. This measures 30" by 17" and sujijiorts the
Box Unit and Screen. It is divided longitiulinally underneath by a
screen of Essex board reaching from the underneath of the top to
the floor and coming round on either side so that the percipient’s
legs are in a sort of bay.

The Box Unit. The five boxes are of mahogany and measure 1^"
in width with spacings of |" between them. The lids slope down-
wards towards the jiercipient and overhang the boxes in front so
that they can be raised by lifting with a jiadded stick. They are
held down by springs of rubber bands, one on either side, passing
over jjrojections in the sides of the lids, which form cranks. The
j)ressure is therefore strongest when the lids are closed and weakens
as they are ojiened. The lids are rabetted and faced with fine velvet
where they make contact with the box, and an undercut flange
])rojects into a space under the hinge, thus rendering the lid light-
tight.

Arranged on a shelf above and behind the boxes is a double row of
electric contacts (Cl-ClO) so adjusted as to be opened by an arm
jirojecting backwards from the side of the lid when the latter is

147]

in Extra-Sensory Perception

121

closed. Wlieii the front of the lid is raised as much as these
contacts automatically close. One of them for each box brings in the
Trial Recorder (TR) which registers the trial by making a short dash
on a moving strip of paper tape, while the other causes a relay to
close, which renders possible the recording of a success if the right
lid has been raised, l)Tit not otherwise. The five boxes are open at the
back to allow of the introduction of small carriages which contain
the electric lamps. Each is secured in position by the turning of a
button, and when each is pushed home the lamp is automatically
brought into circuit.

The Screen. A screen of 3-ply wood 30" square fits into grooves in
the sides of the apparatus and comes down to the table on either side
and so divides the entire table longitudinally into two halves. The
top of the screen is then 5 feet above the floor and the percipient
can see nothing of what is going on on the other side of the table.
And, as has been said, the screen is continued under the table to the
floor and is also brought round to the sides. The percipient’s table
is connected to the operator’s table by flexible wires 23 feet long, and
can thus be moved about the room.

The Operator s Table. This contains most of the apparatus.

The Relay Switches (Rl-RlO). There are ten of these relays of the
1000 ohm P.O. type operating on a current of from 5 nia. upwards,
and the object of them is to enable successes to record themselves
automatically. Five of these are connected, one each, in circuit
with the box-lid contacts ; and five are connected, one each, in
circuit with the lamps in the boxes. The contacts of these relays
are connected in pairs in series, one box-lid relay and one lain})
relay from the same box, making a pair. This gives the arrangement
that when a pair are closed together, the Success Recorder (SR)
is brought into action, and a second dash is made on the tape parallel
with the dash recording the trial. A double dash thus indicates a
success. The arrangement will be understood at once by reference
to Diagram A.

Since one relay is in circuit with each lam}), it is necessary that
there should be no distinctive sounds from them which might betray
to the percipient which lamp is alight. The relays are carefully
silenced with rubber and are placed in a stout oak case faced with
velvet where it is pressed against the table.

The Multiple Cut-out (MC). This is a device to render it impossible
for the percipient to score a success by raising more than one box-lid
at a time. The possibihty of opening one box for a preliminary peep
is secured against by the early closing of the Trial Recorder circuit
which records the trial before the })erci})ient can see into the box.

122

C). N. M . TyrreM : Fmiker Research

[part

l>ut, unless sonie (h'vice were j)i'ovi(l(‘(l to jtrevent it, it would he
possible to secure a success hy ojjening some or all of the boxes
together. The Multijtlc Cut-out consists of a relay with five wind-
ings on one core, and it is jROvided with a break instead of a make
contact. One of these windings is included in circuit with each of
the percipient’s relays, and the tensions are so adjusted that the
current passing through one winding is insufficient to work the relay,
while the current ])assijig through two or more windings is sufficient
to work it. Thus, if two or more box-lids are opened, the relay works
and breaks the circuit of the Success Recorder, thus rendering the
recording of a success impossible. The Trial Recorder works as
usual and records a failure.

The Recorders. ’These are made l.)y aflapting a machine known
in the Post Office as a “ Morse Iid<er.” This machine drives by
clockwork a stri)) of ])aper wide and there is an electro-magnet,
which, when energised, Itrings an ink-wheel into contact with the
]>a])er and marks a dash on it. This machine has been adpated to
comprise two iidc-wheels side by side marking on the same strip
of paj)er, each o])erated by its own inde])endent electro-magnet.
One of these is the ’Ihial Recorder, which makes a mark each time
any box-lid is lifted ; the other is the Success Recorder, which makes
a second mark ]jarallel to the trial mark each time any box is opened
which has a lamp alight inside it.

The Keys. Five Keys are arranged in a row so that the pressing of
any key lights a lamj) in one of the boxes. Each key makes contact
with a globule of mercury contained in a lu'ass cup, which renders it
silent.

The Covmintaior. The wires from the keys do not jjass directly
to the lamps but ])ass first through a Cojinnutator. This is, in effect,
a rotary switch ca]>able of transporting or mixing up the five con-
nexions in various ways. The five wires from the keys can, by its
means, be joined to the five lamps in ten different ways, seven of
which transpose the connexions in various orders, while the re-
maining three join them to the lamps in a straightforward order of
one to one, two to two and so on. This Commutator switch is driven
by an electi'ic ratchet mechanism. It is iii fact a “ Rntary Line ”
switch as used by the Post Office in automatic tele])hone exchanges,
and the ]>rcssing of a button causes it to rotate and come to rest in one
of the ten ])Ositions. The switch is enclosed in a box, which has a
door fac.ing the o])crator, so that when the door is shut and the button
is pressed, the switch comes to rest in a position which is unknown,
to the oj)erator. After that, the operator, as he presses each key,
docs not know which lamp he is lighting. As the switch rotates

147]

in ExiraSensnry Perceplinii

i2;{

nipidly ;uid ilu* huM-nii is usually ]uvss(m1 or Four Fiiiics Mu'i'o

is uo ])ossil)ility of the opera-tor’s j^iiessiiip; where', il, ma,y c.ouue to I'est.

The tieledor. lii addition to the live keys then', is a inecluudeal
Selector, consistitig of a rotating switch of the sanie kind a,s that iise'd
for the Commutator ; but in this only a single arm opera, tes a,nd
selects one out of the five laitip circuits. The Selector coid'-aitis
25 contacts and these are arranged in a semi-circ,lc with a double,
arm jeassing over each in succession. VV'hen one arm has sw(;pt
over the semi-circle of contacts the dianietrically opposite arm
takes over and follows it. The arm is driv(',n by a,ti e.lectro-magmd-ic,
and ratchet device and the 25 contacts are grouped in 5 groups of 5
each. In each grouj) the wires from the five lamps arc conneeb'd to
the contacts in a different order, the (;orres[)onding numbers of
each group are then connected together. Hence, the Selecdor, whe-n
worked, stops with one of the five la,mp-circuits selectc.d and c,on-
nected U]>, the choice l)eing purely a random one. The k(!y working
the Selector is so arranged that when it is pressed, the breaking of
the back contact stoj)s the Selector and thereby selects a circuit,
and then the making of the front contact of the la^y completes tlui
common part of the lamp-circuits. Thus no current passes through
the Selector while it is moving.

The Selector is rendered silent by (uicaseinent in thre(! boxes filled
with wra])pings of various sound-cleadening matc'rials, and is [)la,C('d
in a gallery at the far end of the room, 20 fe.et from the opera,tor’s
table. It is for all practical purposes inaudible and is usc.d as a,n
alternative to the keys, being brought itd,o circuit by tlu', operid ion
of a simj>le switch ready to the operator’s hand.

Tests of Selector . The Selector is tested from tiimito tiimito make sure
of its impartiality. The results of the last test of 2000 trials are a,s
follows : 410, 405, 400, 370, 415 for the frequencies of the live circuits.

The Delay-action Relay (l)Ali). dljis device secures that, when
desired, the jrressing of the operator’s key shall sel(!ct which hunp
is going to be lit next, without actually lighting it. It consists of a
relay of which the electro-magnet is in circuit witli the d'rial Itecordc.r,
so that each time the latter works this nday clos(;s. 'I’he contact
which thus closes is jdaced in the common return wire of the lamps,
so that, in the ordinary way, no lamp will light until this relay ha,s
been actuated. Thus, when the o|)erator f>resses one of his keys, or
works the automatic iSelector, he will have sclectc.d a circuit, but the
lamp will not light because the cormnon circuit of all the lamps is
broken at the Delay-action lielay. As soon, liowe.vcu’, as any l)ox-lid
is opened, this relay comes into operation and the sesh^etc.d lamp
lights u|). WIkui it is tmt desired f,o use*, this a,rrangemc,nt, it is thrown

124 G. N. M . Tyrrell : Further Research [part

out of action by simply sliort-circuiting the relay-contacts by a
switch. The object of the device will be described later.

Synchronising Lamp (SL). Since working is done at high speed,
it is essential that the operator should have some method of keeping-
in ste]) with the percipient. He must be able to know that he is
]»ressing his key at the same time that a box-lid is open, otherwise
no successes can be recorded. A small lamp is therefore placed in
front of the oj^erator, and is lit up by the Trial Recorder each time
a box-lid is opened. The operator has only to watch the synchron-
ising lamp and press his key when it is alight.

Sounder (S) and Counter (C). As he presses the key with his right
hand, the operator raises a small lever witli his left, which performs
two actions sinndtaneously, (a) it closes the circuit which causes
the Sounder to give a click under the percipient’s table, and (h) it
moves on a Counter on which it records each trial and tells the operator
when he has reached 100. This also avoids the necessity for having
to count the total numl)er of trials on the tape.

Operators Screen. The operator’s table is situated in the corner
of the room, so that one wall is behind him and another on his right
hand, where the end of his table shuts against the wall. The back of
the table and its outer end are surrounded by a wooden screen,
reaching to the floor and standing 5 feet above it. There is only a
space 30" wide left for the operator to get in and out of the corner in
which he works. Thus, nothing whatever can be seen of the operator
or his table or any of his apparatus from any part of the room where
the percipient’s table is placed. And, in addition, there is the screen
already described on the percipient’s table itself.

Reliability of the Apparatus. One question which naturally
])resents itself is this. Could the failure of any j)art of the machine
to act properly give a falsely high score ? The most hkely thing to
happen is for the operator to get out of step with the percipient
when the experiment goes fast. The effect of this will be to shorten
the time during which a key is f)ressed and a Ijox is opened simul-
taneously. This shortens the length of the dash indicating a success.
If there is no common time at all during which a key is j>ressed and a
box opened together, a success becomes impossible, and only the
dash of the Trial Recorder appears. Thus successes may be lost by
getting out of time, but they cannot be gained.

Failure of the box-lid contacts to open when the hds are closed
results in a continuous line being drawn on the ta])e, giving no separa-
tion of trials and therefore no series of experiments. Their failure to
close when the lids are opened gives blank spaces on the tape, so that
it simply results in no trials at all being recorded.

147]

in Extra-Sensory Percej)tion

125

The only way in which nnearned successes could be recorded would
be if the Relays stuck in the closed position, faihng to release when
the current was off. This, as a matter of fact, has never happened,
but a simple and rapid test can always be applied to show whether
they are working properly. This test is frequently carried out and is
always applied after any strikingly good result has been obtained.
It has been found that any fault shows itself immediately on the tape
record.

Types of Experiment which are Possible with
THE Apparatus

(1) The Selector. This renders it possible to do experiments in
which the events on one side are certainly distributed according to a
purely chance arrangement. Since the wires from the Selector to
the lamps pass through the Commutator, they are further re-
arranged there, but this makes no difference.

(2) The Keys. These may lie used to give several different
conditions.

(i) They may be connected to the lamps in a straight one to one
order. This arrangement divides into three sub-sections : (a) where
the arrangement is known to the subject and to the operator ;
(6) where it is known to the operator only ; (c) where it is known
neither to operator or subject.

(ii) Key connexions transposed by the Commutator. This can
also be subdivided into (a), (6) and (c). And, in addition, it is possible
for all these to apply either to the case in which the mere fact that
there is a transposition is known ; or to the case in which the actual
order of the transposition is known also.

(in) It is possible, with the keys, for the operator either to select
each trial at random or to take the trials from a list of mechanically
selected numbers taken beforehand.

Any case in which the operator knows the order in which the keys
are connected to the lamps allows of the possibility of telepathy as
well as of clairvoyance. Any case in which he does not know this
rules out the possibility of telepathy, and leaves only that of clair-
voyance, or possibly of precognition.

(iv) It is also possible to use any of the above arrangements in
conjunction with the Delay-action Relay.

(v) It is possible to test for precognition by getting the percipient
to open the box at each trial before the lamji-circuit has been selected
by the operator when keys are being used, or by the mechanical
Selector.

126 G. N. M. Tyrrell: Further Research [part

Some Possible Criticisms of the Apparatus

The more obvious points of criticism are dealt with here :
Knowledge by Normal Means

(i) Visual. Until 16th November 1935, the keys were on the
percipient’s table behind the screen. Nothing could be seen of them
unless the percipient got up and peeped round the edge of the screen,
which she could not do from her seat ; and this would stop the experi-
ment in a very olivious way. Even this would be no help when the
Commutator was in use. It must be remembered that the opening
of each box is accompanied by the click of the Recorder and that even
a slight hesitation in this rhythmical sound is noticeable.

The Recorder is on the operator’s table, and even if it were visible,
would give no help to the percipient. Actually, the record is made
under a roller and no trial is visible until it has emerged over the
roller about two trials later.

When the keys were removed to the ojierator’s table, the latter
was surrounded by a high screen.

There is a board of resistance-lamps for working the apparatus off
the mains, and the hght of these lamps fluctuates each time a key
is pressed. The fluctuation is exactly the same so far as can be
detected whatever key is used, but, on the advice of Professor
Adrian, a metal screen was placed over this board in the beginning
of January 1936.

(ii) Auditory. The sound of the relays in the operator’s circuits,
if the percipient could hear them and could distinguish the sound of
each, would give an indication of which lamp was alight. The
Commutator would not help to do away with this, as each of these
relays has to be connected to its own particular lamp. These relays,
as has been said, were carefully silenced so as to be practically
inaudible with the cover removed and with the ear close to them,
and absolutely silent with the cover on. The percipient would have
to hear them when seated at a separate talile from three to nine feet
away, with the thick case over the relays and screen between as
well. But what is even more important is that nearly all work with
this apparatus is done at high speed, that is to say from 60 to 80
trials a minute, when it is impossible to avoid working in a rhythm.
This means, that whether it is intentional or not, one finds that one
is jiressing the key in synchronism with the raising of the Sounder-
lever and the percipient also opens the box synchronously with the
click of the Sounder. The result is that the action of the operator’s
relays occurs simultaneously wdth loud sound of the Recorder, and
even if they made a slight sound, this would be drowned by the

147]

in Extra-Sensory Perception

127

Trial Recorder. In none of those cases in which the key has been
deliberately pressed some time before the opening of the box has
there been any increase in the rate of scoring, which should have
been the case if the sound of the operator’s relays, whether perceived
hyperaesthetically or normally, had been the cause of scoring.
There is also the important effect of the Delay-action Relay, which
entirely prevents any possibility of this sort and to which I shall
refer presently.

The sound of the keys themselves has been eliminated by j)ro-
viding them with mercury contacts. It has been suggested that the
very small spark which takes place on the mercury surface might be
heard by the percipient ; but, from the percipient’s table this is
certainly impossible. And these again, in normal working, are
drowned by the noise of the Recorder. Also there is not the slightest
reason to suppose that the sound of the sparks differ from one
another, or that if they do, the difference is constant. And in any
case, the Commutator would do away with any possible hel|) these
might be imagined to give.

Unconscious whispering. This would have to be very loud to
overcome the noise of the Recorder and extremely rapid, and ob-
servers cmdd scarcely fail to have noticed it. Also the Commutator
again would render it useless.

(hi) Tactual. Until the keys were moved to the operator’s table,
operator and percipient shared the same table, sitting one on each
side of the screen. Their legs might therefore come into contact
and a critic might say that information could be conveyed by touch,
though this could scarcely be unconscious. Therefore on 1st Sep-
tember 1935 a complete screen was provided as above described.

Hyperaesthesia

The foregoing arguments which apply to the acquisition of know-
ledge by normal sight and hearing apply also to hyperaesthesic
sight and hearing. Hyperaesthesia does not help to distinguish a
faint sound which is covered by a louder one. The only sense which
might be alleged to be helped by hyperaesthesia is the visual one.
If there were any escape of light past the lids of the boxes, this would
of course be a guide to the percipient. Or it might be said that the
lamp which was alight made the box shghtly warmer, and that the
temperature-sense was a guide. But, as has been said, the opening
of the box and the lighting of the lamp are practically simultaneous.
In any case, the lamp is alight only for a fraction of a second, and it
may be mentioned that the lamps are not lit to their full brightness.
Suppose that the heat of the lamp were to pass through the bulb and

128

G. N. M. Tyrrell : Further Research

[part

begin to warm the lid of the box, it would probably not have its
effect until the trial was over and the next lamp was alight, since it
takes time for anything to get warm ; and then it would simply be
misleading.

It might be suggested that some unknown form of radiation from
the lamp passes through the wood of the box and alfects some un-
known sense-organ of the percipient in some unknown way. It is
of interest in this connexion to observe that highly significant scores
have been obtained when the boxes were opened well in advance of
the lighting of the lamps (see No. 134, Table XXIV).

But in any case the Delay-action Relay sweeps away these objec-
tions at one blow’. As liefore stated, this device delays the lighting
of the lain]), after it has been selected, until after the box-lid has been
opened, so that w’hen the ])ercipient selects the box, the lamp is not
yet alight. It is, in fact, the percipient’s own action which lights it.
Yet, so far as the percipient can see, there is no difference whether
the delay-action is in operation or not.

To return now for a moment to the possibility of help from the
sounds of the operator’s relays dealt with above, the delay-action
also does away with this objection, since these relays are actuated
w'hen the lamps are lit, viz. after the box-lid is opened. The results
in Table XXII show about equal success wdth the delay-action and
without it ; so that all these criticisms are swept away together.

To sum up. The Commutator and the Delay-action Relay to-
gether eliminate the following possible criticisms. All sensory aid
from parts of the apparatus, whether hyperaesthesia be present or
not. All sensory indications wdiicli could be given by the operator,
such as unconscious w’hispering, etc.

Fraud

The percipient has no opportunity to score by any fraudulent
means. The operator is surrounded in front and on one side by a
screen 5 feet high and by the walls of the room on the other two
sides, except for a narrow space about 30" wide by the wall. This
screen entirely intervenes between the twm tables. In order to see
anything of the operator or the contents of his table the percipient
would have to get up and leave her table and ])cer over the screen
without causing a hitch in trials going at the rate of 70 a minute.
This source of fraud is therefore absurd. And further, even if the
])ercipient could see the operator’s table, she would as a rule get no
useful information from it.

The percipient cannot peep into the boxes beforehand because as
soon as the lid of a box is raised even a small fraction of an inch

147]

in Extra-Sensory Perception

129

a trial has been recorded. Nor can she score successes by raising
more than one box- lid at a time for this cuts out the Success Recorder
and registers a failure. If any box fails to close completely, the
Trial Recorder remains in action and draws a continuous line on the
tape and thus automatically wipes out the experiments. The per-
cipient is therefore powerless to do anything except carry out the
experiment in the legitimate way.

Chance in Connexion with the Apparatus

The next question to be considered is how chance affects the a]!-
paratus which I am now describing — whether there is anything in
the course of the experiments which is likely to alter the assumed
probability of success and, if so, in what way and to what degree.

In the Electrical Apparatus, with which we are now deahng, there
are ten events ; five of which are the lighting of lamps by the operator,
and five the opening of boxes by the percipient. Let the lamps and
the boxes be numbered from left to right, as seen by the percipient,
from 1 to 5. Then let p.^, Ps be the respective probabilities

of the lamps being lit, and 5'^, q^, q^, q^, q^ be the respective probabili-
ties of the boxes being opened in any particular trial, the sum of the
p’s being unity and the sum of the q’s being unity.

AVe are not concerned with the different ways in which these
events can distribute themselves in any block of trials, but only
with the coincidences between lit lamps and ojiened boxes. The
probability of there being a coincidence between a lit lamp and an
opened box is the product of the separate probabilities of each event
occurring. For instance, the probability that No. 1 box will be
opened while No. 1 lamp is alight is pyq^, and so on with the other
lamps and boxes. But what we are particularly interested in for
our purpose is the probability of there being a coincidence some-
where along the line between a lit lamp and an opened box in any
particular trial. This probability is given liy the sum of the proba-
bilities of the particular coincidences. It is the Probability of
Success. Let us call it p.

Then, p = {p^q-, + mq.^ + pyq^ + p,q^ + p.q.),

which is true generally, whatever values the p’s and q’s may have.

Let us first suppose that the lighting of the lam^is and the opening
of the boxes is so distributed that there is no favouritism on either
side, so that any lamp is equally likely to 1ie lit and any Ijox is
equally likely to be opened at any particular trial. That will mean
that the probability that any lamp will be lit and that any box will

130

G. N. M. Tyrrell : Further Research

[part

be opened is 1/5 ; and the probahility that any lamp will fail to be
lit or any l)ox fail to be opened is 4/5. But this raises a curious point
which has some practical importance. What is meant by saying
that any one of five events is “ equally likely to happen ” ? It is
certainly a point open to discussion ; and it may be that there are
two distinct meanings to the phrase, one of which is relative to
knowledge while the other refers to objective fact. At any rate, the
latter meaning is the one we are now concerned with. That any one
of five events is equally likely to happen means, in this sense, that if
the trials are continued, the tendency is indefinitely towards the
occurrence of each of the five events an equal number of times, that
is, one-fifth of the total, in the long run. It is these words, “ in the
long run ” which are important, and we shall have to return to the
])oint later.

The condition of “ ecpial likelihood ” on both sides, which we have
assumed, means that,

Ih =]h=Ih=]h=Ih = R = fh = % = <h = To = 1/5,
so that the probability of a success in any one particular box is 1/25.
And the Probability of Success,

^j = (l/5)2 + (1/5)2 + (1/5)2+ (1/5)2 + (1/5)2 = 5/25 = 1/5.

The first thing to be noted about this formula is that, so long as
each of the five events is equally likely to ha])pen on one side, it does
not make any difference to the probability of success what the dis-
tribution of events is on the other side ; the probability ofisuccess still
remains 1 /5. Tins could be proved generally, but it will be sufficient
to illustrate it by taking an extreme example. Suppose that on one
side the events are distributed in a chance order (say the lighting of
the lamps), while on the other one box (say No. 1) is opened every
time, while the others are neglected.

Then, each of the ps = 1/5 ; = 1 ; T=T = (]i = T = ih

p = (l/5+l + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0) = l/5.

Even in this extreme case the 2)robability of success is not altered.
In order that it shall be altered, both sides must depart from the
chance distribution of events. Even then, it does not follow that the
probability of success will be raised ; in fact, it is more likely that it
will be lowered.

If we know what frequency preferences there are in the operator’s
and ])ercipient’s habits, l)y checking each box opened and each key
jiresscd, we can calculate froin the above formula what effect these
will have on the prol)al)ility of success. In an actual case in which
this has been done, the following is the result. Graph III, Nos. I

147]

in Extra-Sensory Perception

131

and II, sliows a record of 100 trials in which G.N.M.T. was the
operator, using the keys, and L.H. was the percipient. This block
of trials was checked completely from both the operator’s and the
percipient’s ends, and No. 1 shows by the dots each key which was
pressed in turn and No. 2 shows by the dots each box which was
opened in turn. The successful trials are shown by rings round the
dots. The frequencies are shown by the total figures at the bottom
of each table ; and they indicate a slight tendency to favour the
middle number (No. 3) on the part of both the operator and the
percipient. Inserting these frequencies in the above formula will
show what effect this favouritism has on the prolmbility of success.

E-

100

^^'‘“100

'^^“100

'^^“loo

^““100

'^^“100

_ ^255 360 600 440 378

P~ \ Ta4 + 2^Q4 + p)4 + ](04 + 1 ni

10^

2033

~l¥'

101

:0-2033.

This is a departure from the assumed value of 0-2 or 1/5 which is
quite unimportant.

Graph III, No. IV shows a case in which G.J. was the percipient.
It does not pair with No. Ill, which is a record taken independently
from the mechanical selector, Imt with another talde in which
G.N.M.T. was the ojierator which is not shown in the graph, but in
which the frequency totals were 23, 23, 23, 18, 13. The probability
of success, when worked out by the same formula, comes to 0T995,
showing, instead of a rise owing to the human departure from random
choice, a slight Init quite insignificant fall. Such frequency pre-
ferences as actually occur are such as to cause only quite negligilde
deviations from the assumed 1/5 value for the probability of success.
Indeed, frequency preferences in order to make an important differ-
ence would have to be glaringly obvious. If both the operator and
the percipient chose one number fifty times out of a hundred, the
odds are four to one against their choosing the same number. If
they chose different numbers, distributing their choices as evenly as
possible over the other four, the result would l)e actually to reduce
the probability of success from 0-2 to 0-1719. Only if they chose the
same number would the prol)ability of success be raised. It would
be raised to 0-3126 ; and it is interesting to note that this would be

132 G. N. M. Tyrrell : Further Research [part

just about the value it would have to have in order to account for
the successes with the Pointer Apparatus by frequency preferences.
And no one who has used the apparatus could suggest that this kind
of preference on both sides could pass unnoticed.

Number Sequence-Habits. There might be no particular frequency
preferences on either side and yet there might be sequence number-
habits. Both sides, for instance, might constantly use the order
3, 2, 1, 4 or some such order of sequence.

Here again, such a habit would make no difference if it were only
on one side ; and again, also, it would make no difference on both
sides unless the sequences coincided. It could only be effective on
those occasions on which there was a success with a 3. Again, to
think of an exaggerated case as an illustration, suppose both sides
went continually from one end of the row to the other, they could
easily miss each other altogether by being out of step. Only if they
coincided when going in the same direction would they score 100%
successes. With any sequence-habits, in order to alter the prob-
ability of success, (1) operator and subject must have identical
habits, and (2) the sequences of both must start together from a
success. So that it will be realised how easy it is to exaggerate the
importance of number-habits by talking about them loosely.

Another important point about sequence habits is that the Com-
mutator would break them up. If we take, for instance, the straight
sequence 1 , 2, 3, 4, 5, this would be transformed by the Com-
mutator into 3, 5, 2, 1, 4 ; 2, 3, 1, 5, 4, and so on in seven ways, so
that, if the percipient did manage to coincide with a habit of the
operator’s, the Commutator would render this habit worse than
useless ; and if sequence number-habits had been the cause of
scoring, the Commutator should have brought the scores down to
chance values. Hence, neither frequency nor sequence number-
habits will account for the rates of scoring actually attained.

Those who have been good enough to give me valued criticism
and advice have urged that the recorfling mechanism of the apparatus
ought to have been constructed so as to record each box opened and
each lamp lit. With this criticism I am in agreement up to a point.
That is to say, I agree that it is necessary to have a representative
selection of blocks of trials recorded in this way, Imt I do not think
that it would be either necessary or convenient to have all experi-
ments so recorded. The wealth of detail woidd be cumbersome as
the records ran into hundreds. And if only a few are required they
can be ol)tained by getting two recorders to check by hand. But un-
doubtedly automatic checking is better, and the ideal arrangement
would be to have both kinds of recorder and to use either at will.

147] in Extra-Sensory Perception 133

The reason why a complete recorder of this kind was not provided
from the beginning is that the electrical apparatus, like, 1 suppose,
most pioneer apphances, was a patchwork growth rather than a
complete plan. And in the beginning, a mechanism for registering
every trial would have been more elaborate and expensive than the
dual recorder actually used, and more difficult to install. There were
too many mechanical problems to be dealt with at first for more to
seem desirable. And later, when the need for the complete recorder
became clearer, it seemed an unwise policy to ask the percipients to
stand aside while the apparatus was dismantled for the considerable
time which would have been necessary to get a new piece of apparatus
to work satisfactorily.

Chance in Connexion with the Experiments

In the kind of experimental work which is here being dealt with,
the estimation of the probability that any result is due to chance is
fraught with special difficulties, and it is no easy matter to present
these probabilities in any satisfactorily clear and logical fashion.
But there is on the other hand a compensating fact, for the anti-
chance figures in most cases turn out to be so large as to render the
theoretical difficulties formal rather than practical, and to leave an
investigator who is in touch with the phenomena in no doubt as to
the verdict. As an example of the kind of difficulty which arises, we
may consider how to deal with the results of an experiment which has
been done on one particular day. It may be that these results show
significance when dealt with alone ; but the difficulty is that if we
deal with this day’s results alone they may be regarded as a selection
taken from a series which ought to have included the results ob-
tained on other days as well. The only fair way to deal with these
results, according to this argument, would be to take the chance-
probability figure for the results of all the days together. Then, if
the results on the other days had been blank or poor, it might quite
possibly be found that the day which showed significant results
when considered alone, would have to be regarded as a freak of
chance which could occur in the larger total, showing in itself no
significance on the whole. In the same way, a man who, while on his
way to visit a friend, stepped into the very ’bus in which that friend
was travelhng, might think at first that some special influence had
caused the meeting ; but when he considered the large number of
occasions on which such a coincidence might have happened Imt
did not, he would see that it could well be accounted for by
chance.

134 6r. N. J\I. Tyrrell : Further Research [part

There is tliiis in the estimation of chance the principle which makes
it necessary to deal with the relevant whole : but the difficult
question in practice is to decide what the relevant whole is. If the
method of estimation deals with too narrow a basis, it runs the risk of
taking results to be significant which are really due to chance : but
if it deals with too wide a basis, it runs the risk of confusing the issue
with figures which are meaningless.

It is necessary to divide the experiments into groups, each group
consisting of results obtained under the same conditions, and to
calculate the chance-probability figure for each group. But it is
obvious that the different grouj)S must be kept apart and not in-
cluded together in the same total, otherwise the chance-probability
figure will have no intelligible meaning. For example, one group of
exjieriinents may have been done under condition A while another
group has been done under condition B ; and it may be that A was a
condition which permitted the phenomenon to occur, while B was a
condition which prevented it from occurring. Clearly a probability
figure for A and B combined will not l)e illuminating. The difficulty
which occurs in practice is that of being sure that, in dealing with
what a]‘)pears to Ijc a grouj), we are not in reality dealing with a
composite group containing more than one set of conditions. There
is a difficulty in this subject which does not occur in physics, for the
relevant conditions are not only physical and external ; they are also
psychological and internal to the subject ; and, of the two sets of
conditions, the psychological ones are ])robably the most important.
But as these lie to a great extent beyond the operator’s control, they
must perforce l)e ignored for the purpose of probability calculations.
That conditions exist within the subject which profoundly influence
the results, is shown by the fluctuations in the rate of scoring which
occur when the external conditions are kept the same. And even
when dealing with the external conditions alone there are apt to be
minor sub-divisions which have to be discounted to avoid undue
complication.

The ])rinciple which is hero adopted is to regard as a group all
experiments which have been done under the same general external
conditions and to take the temporal limits of such groups as coin-
ciding with the period under review. (See Table XXV.)

These considerations lead to the conclusion that chance-prob-
al)ility figures should only l>e used to indicate the odds against the
results of certain groups of experiments being due to chance in a way
which may l)e called “ by and large.” It is, moreover, dangerous to
juoceed to induction and to correlate the anti-chance figures with
the experimental conditions in such a way . as to infer causal relation-

147]

in Extm-Sensory Perception

135

ships ; and it is dangerous to lay stress on anti-chance figures which
are near the point of significance. It is necessary to use coniinon
sense, and above all to take into account the guiding indications
which arise from contact with the subject.

But it is not a case of dealing merely with the chance-probabilities
of group totals ; for a striking feature of these experiments is not
the totals themselves only, but also the manner in which the totals
arise. To illustrate this, tables have been given showing the com-
parative rates of scoring belonging to two different sets of experi-
mental conditions carried on simultaneously, but not extending to
the full temporal scope of the groups. The comparisons are made,
as a rule, by giving not the chance-probability figures, but the
percentage rates of scoring ; but sometimes, when they seemed to be
of interest, probability figures have been given for series of experi-
ments which are less than an entire group (as in Table XV). The
reader, if he distrusts these, may compare them with the figures for
the grouj)-totals in Table XXV.

Experimental Results with the Electrical Apparatus

As soon as this apparatus was sufficiently complete, experiments
were begun with it, a mechanical Selector being used instead of
the method by which the operator selected the events by his own
choice. The Selector first tried was impartial as amongst the five
lamp circuits, but it was noisy and unrehable in its working and had
the effect of putting the subject off to such an extent that she soon
felt a strong dishke for it. She also said that it felt “ mechanical ”
and had not the “ human feeling ” which the Pointer Apparatus had.
The subject’s table, also, was some 12 feet from the operator’s and this
gave her a strange and lonely feeling. These things, perhaps, sound
childish ; but the fact is that the state in which the scoring is done is
easily influenced by feelings of this kind and they have to be recognised.

A set of experiments was carried out with this early form of
Selector between 13th May and 1st June 1935, but without any
positive results. As an additional drawback, the subject suffered
from an influenza cold for ten days of this period. The results were
as follow :

Table VI

Subject G.J . Operator G.N .M .T. Auto, liecording
No. T S D % Conditions

71 8000 1540 -60 19-25 First Selector.

As the trials in these experiments went on without success, the

subject became more and more disheartened and this no doubt

13G

G. N. M . Tyrrell : Fur Tier Research

[part

milita.ted still further against success. My policy of j)ersevering
with the same condition through as many as 8000 trials was a mis-
taken one.

Those who took part in these experiments will be referred to by
their initials as follows :

G.J. Miss G. M. Johnson.

Jj.H. Mrs Hemingway.

B. -M. Mrs Bramley-Moore.

C. M.T. Mrs Tyrrell.

G.W.F. Mr G.'W. Fisk.

G.N.M.T. Mr G. N. M. Tyrrell.

Introduction of Keys

Since the Selector had so far been a failure, it was decided to
re-introduce the human element by providing the operator with five
Keys for lighting the lamps in the boxes, so as to return as nearly
as might l)e to the conditions of the Pointer Apparatus. The only
difference now from the latter would be that the operator pressed a
key which he chose at random instead of putting a pointer into a
box ; and the ])erci])ient would see the lamp alight inside the box
instead of seeing the pointer. The Keys, as has already been said,
had been rendered silent by the provision of mercury contacts.

The subject’s table was l)rought near the operator’s to help to
restore the feeling of “ human confidence,” which the subliminal
seemed to demand, being so placed that the screen on it, 30 inches
square, hid the operator and his table completely from the per-
cipient. The screening was c[uite satisfactory, but it should be noted
that it was afterwards marie doubly effective by providing a screen
round the operator’s table as w^ell. At this time, before the seconrl
screen was added, the op])ortunity (if opportunity it can be called)
of getting normal information from the operator’s table was at its
best, but all the results were failures.

Table VII
3rd to 1th June, 1935

No. T S d % Conditions

72 1305 276 -fl5 21d Keys and Lamps.

This is entirely a chance result, yet the conditions differ from those
with the Pointer oidy in the fact that the operator does not know
what boxes the percipient is opening. It might be said that this
suj)])orts the hypothesis that, with the Pointer Apj)aratus, the
ojierator had Ireen watching the ])ercipient’s habits of oj)ening boxes

147]

in Extra-Sensory Perception

137

and had fallen in with them, either consciously or unconsciously.
But the sequel negatives this.

Reversion to the Pointer

As the Keys and Lamps had failed, I resolved to go back to the
beginning again and use the Pointer. The original Pointer Apparatus
not being available, as it was being used elsewhere, I took the lamps
out of the boxes and muffled a pencil by wrapping a piece of flannel
round it, and used it as a pointer. It was not quite so silent as the
original pointer as the boxes were not padded, but it was moderately so.

The subject, after a brief holiday, came back and realised this as
the old Pointer Apparatus again and sat down to it with the “ don’t
care ” feeling, which was bred of the confidence of past successes ;
and success returned.

Table VIII
l(k/i June, 1935

No.

Conditions

100

+ 15

Pointer inside Boxes.

100

+ 25

)) 55

100

+ 3

,, outside ,,

100

+ 1

,, inside ,,

100

+ 1

,, outside ,,

+ 6

55-0

,, inside ,,

+ 15

58-7

,, outside ,,

Now, when the pointer was thrust into the boxes the conditions
were exactly the same as with the original Pointer Apparatus,
except that it was not quite so silent.

When the pointer was put outside the box the padded end was
merely rested on the shelf behind the box and opposite the opening.
The percipient could not see it here because of the depth of the box,
and, in fact, never saw anything.

The return to the old conditions partly restored the scoring, and
the first criticism would be that this was due to the sound of the
pointer entering the box, for Nos. 73 and 74 show success when it is
put in and No. 75 shows failure when it is put outside. But No. 76
shows failure when it is put inside again ; and Nos. 78 and 79 which
are a split run of 100 show a high rate of success both with the pointer
inside and outside the box.

It is instructive to notice here how success and failure do not range
themselves with changes in the external conditions of the exjjeri-
ments but cut right across them. Thus, if the subject were scoring

138 G. N. M. Tyrrell : Further Research [part

l^y the sound of the pointer No. 76 should go up and No. 79 sliould go
down. But if success comes at all, it seems to be oblivious of ex-
ternal conditions.

Return to Lawqjs and Keys

Since scoring had again appeared, I went back to the Lamps and
Keys, but again they proved a failure.

Table IX
lOdi June, 1935

No. T S d % Conditions

80 406 93 +12 22-8 Lamps and Keys.

What the subject said about them was that, when she came back
to the Lamps and Keys, the “ don’t care ” feeling she had with the
Pointer left her, and she felt concerned about the result. So failure
again supervened. We therefore went back to the beginning again
and used the Pointer.

Table X
1 Ith June, 1935

No.

Conditions

100

Pointer inside Boxes.

100

+ 19

5? )>

+ 5

) 5 ) J ) 5

+ 15

38-7

,, outside ,,

The pointer again restored the scoring and again it did not matter
whether it entered the boxes or not. Hence, scoring cannot have
been due to the sound of the pointer when it did enter. If any
normal means of scoring was being used, the difference between the
scores in Nos. 81 and 82 remains unexplained, and the sudden drop
after Nos. 73 and 74 in Table VIII. A score of 39 in 100 cannot be
due to chance.

Another return to the Lamps and Keys was then tried.

Table XI
Uth June, 1935

No.

Conditions

100

-7

Lanpjs and Keys

100

+ 6

100

-4

100

+ 6

147]

in Extra-Sensory Perception

139

Here was again failure when I went to the Lamj)S and Keys. Of
course, to do this, I went liack to the operator’s talde to work the
Keys, whereas I worked the Pointer from the back of the per-
cipient’s own table. G.J. (or her subliminal) did not like the new
condition of my being further away ; so I removed the Keys to the
back of her table, where they were, if anything, more effectively
screened than on my own table.

However, I did not at first use the Keys but went back to the
Pointer again, removing the Lamps from the boxes. But, in order
to take a step in the direction of accustoming the subject to the
“ mechanical feeling ” of the new apparatus, I connected it so that
the automatic Eecorder would work even with the Lamps removed.
This Eecorder makes an audible click at every trial. But for this, the
conditions were exactly the same as those with the Pointer experi-
ments.

Table XII
June, 1935

No. T 8 d % Conditions

89 100 40 -f-20 40 Pointer inside Boxes.

The Pointer had immediately restored success, and I went straight
on to replace the Lamps in the Boxes, and stopped using the
Pointer : and then, at last, after 3100 trials, success had began to
carry over from the Pointer to the Lamps.

Table XIII

No.

Conditions

-2-8

17-0

Keys on Percij)ient’s Table
and Lamps.

+ 24-2

45-7

J3 53 33 33

120

+ 28-0

43-3

3333 33 33

A special test was given to the apparatus after these trials and it
was found to be working perfectly.

This is very instructive, for the condition with the Lamps and
Keys, which has now begun to give success, is exactly the same as
that which had given persistent failure for so long. The process is
illustrated graphically in Graph I, which shows the condition with
Lamps failing at first alongside the successes with the Pointer, and
gradually rising to parity with it. It shows the gradual yielding of
the subhminal and its slow accej^tance of the new conditions, and
challenges an explanation in terms of anything but the faculty of
Extra-Sensory Perception. It also provides a lesson on the danger

140 G. N. M. Tyrrell : Further Research [part

of forming hasty conclusions in this inquiry. At first everything
begins to look as if the Pointer must have afforded some loophole
which has been stopped by the stricter conditions of the new method
with the Lamps. And if the machine did not provide a means of
going on through a large number of trials, a critic might well go
away with the impression that this was so. But perseverance shows
that it is nothing of the kind. It is merely an internal resistance to
change.

But it has been mentioned that there was one change in the ex-
ternal conditions which was made before scoring began with the
lamps. The Keys had been moved from the operator’s to the per-
cipient’s table ; and there might be some lingering doubt as to
whether this had given some hints by sound. But the next table
shows a return to failure with the Lamps and Keys in this position.

Table XIV
Y2th June, 1935

No. T S (1 % Conditions

93 331 64 -2-2 19-4 Keys on Percqhent’s Table

and Lamps.

Any normal assistance to scoring would be a constant factor and
would not be likely to oscillate as the actual results do.

The next block of trials shows the condition of the Lamps
accepted and very high rates of scoring attained with them, although
there is still the usual sporadic rise and fall.

Table XV
13dnl4Vi June, 1935

No.

Conditions

+ 19-4

31-8

Keys and Lamps

100

+ 6-0

26-0

?? 55

-hIO-8

34-2

55 55 55

100

-r 22-0

42-0

55 55 55

100

20-0

55 55 55

+ 5-2

28-8

55 55 55

100

+ 10-0

30-0

55 55 55

101

632

198

-t-71-6

31-3

10-“

(Totals.)

In spite of the oscillation between chance and high values, the
totals of this block of results show clearly that it is just as possible
for G.J. to score with the Electrical Machine as with the Pointer

141

147] in Extra-Sensory Perception

Apparatus, once it has l)een accepted : and scoring with it is main-
tained in future.

Health of the Subject. Notes taken at this period show that the
Spring of 1935 was wet and cold, and the sul)ject seems to have had
a succession of colds throughout May and the first half of June,
which no doubt acted generally as a delaying factor.

Commutator

From 15th June, 1935, a Commutator was introduced as an integral
part of the apparatus. This instrument has been described in the
technical account of the apparatus and it will be sufficient here to
state its function. Up to this point, the wires from the operator's
five Keys had led directly to the five Lamps in the boxes, being con-
nected to them in a straightforward, one to one order. Hence the
operator knew, when he pressed any key, which lamp he was
lighting. This made telepathy possible between operator and sub-
ject and caused all results to be “ undifferentiated ” as between
telepathy and clairvoyance. It also left open the criticism (however
highly improbable) that the operator might convey information
unconsciously to the subject by “ unconscious whispering ” etc.
The Commutator is an electrically operated switch, enclosed in a
box, which transposes the connections between the Keys and the
Lamps in ways that may be known or unknown to the operator at
will. If unknown, there can be no telepathy, since he does not know'
w'hat lamps he is lighting.

E.xperiments with Keys wdll be divided into Known (K) and
Unknown (U) classes. Exj^eriments with the mechanical Selector
will be denoted by (Sel). It is possible that either (K) or (U) may
be “ Mixed ” or “ Straight.”

Table XVI shows the effect of introducing the Commutator.

Table XVI
\bth June, 1935

No.

Conditions

102

+ 0-2

20-2

(K) “ Straight ”

103

-I-25-6

47-7

(K) “ Straight ”

104

100

+ 21-0

41-0

(K) “ Straight ”

105

100

-6-0

14-0

(K) “ Mixed ”

106

100

+ 25-0

45-0

(K) “ Straight ”

107

100

+ 6-0

26-0

(K) “ Mixed ”

The condition so long rejected by the subject’s subliminal of
scoring with the Lamps still goes on here attaining high rates of

142

G. N. M . Tyrrell : Fusilier Research

[part

success. The new condition now is the mixing of the connexions
by the Commutator, and Table XVI shows that it is not favoured
witli high scores.

I must apologise here for rather stupidly introducing an un-
necessary comphcation by looking into the Commutator-box each
time to see whether it had stopped on a “ Straight ” or a “ Mixed ”
contact. This means that with logical strictness, the telepathic
element is not removed from the “ Mixed ” cases. I did not con-
sciously remember the various mixed connexions, which were noted
in a book ; but I had known them, so that it could be argued that
telepathy was possible in these cases as well as in the “ Straight ”
ones. Strictly speaking, the important difference is between the
Known and the Unknown cases, and Straight and Mixed arrange-
ments, when equally Unknown, may be classed as the same. In
Table XVI the subject knew which arrangement was being used,
which might account for the differentiation between them.

The difficulty of comparing the Known with the Unknown
conditions hes in the continual variations in scoring that one gets
with the same condition. Therefore in the next table I tried quickly
changing from one condition to the other in the middle of a run
without letting the subject know which half was which, although I
could not prevent her knowing that a change was being made on
account of the slight, necessary pause.

Table XVII
\btli June, 1935

No.

Conditions

108

-7

(K) Straight

-3

(K) Mixed

109

100

+ 4

(K) Mixed

+ 12

(K) Straight

+ 3

(K) Mixed

100

-3

(K) Mixed

112

100

+ 33

(K) Straight

(Totals :

or Table

s XVI and

XVII)

113

1076

326

+ 110-8

30-3

P = 10-16

These results are extraordinary. The subj ect seems to have known
telepathically or guessed which were the Straight conditions and to
have done everything possible to avoid scoring with the Mixed

in Extra-Sensory Perception 143

conditions. No. 108 is the lowest score she has ever obtained and
appears to be deliberately subnormal. It almost looks as if the
subhminal was not sure which half embodied the new, Mixed con-
dition, and resolved to score as low as possible with both in order to
be on the safe side. In No. 109 there is a chance to score with the
Mixed condition. In No. 110 the Straight condition seems to have
been picked out and the score goes up, while the Mixed condition is
given a chance score. Then the Mixed condition, tried alone for
the second time, is again met with a chance score. Finally the
Straight condition, offered alone, is seized on for the highest score
on record (No. 112). That the subliminal had been very active
during this trial was shown by the fact that the subject had to he
down afterwards, feehng the nervous strain. This may have been
partly due to the subj ect’s state of health, for a contemporary note
says, “ G. J . still with heavy cold, continually sneezing. Weather
bad ; raining every few minutes. Cool for June ; almost cold.”

The next batch of results on 18th June shows the same thing
continuing, only towards the end there is one score of 30% with the
new. Mixed condition as an indication that it is about to be accepted.
On 19th June, 675 further trials showed the same tendency to score
with the Straight and not with the Mixed arrangement.

Electric Sounder

On 19th J rme an Electric Sounder was installed for giving the signal
for opening the boxes instead of saying the word “ In.” It was
fortunately accepted almost at once and was always used after this
date.

A break in the experiments then occurred until August 1935.
Then the subject came back after a holiday and tried with the Com-
mutator in a Mixed, and this time also Unknown, position and scored
immediately.

Table XVllI
22«fZ August, 1935

^ 5' d % Cionditions

123 90 35 ^17 .38-9 (U) Mixed

The probabihty of this being a chance result is about 5 in a
milhon. The condition of Mixed connexions within the Commutator
is at length beginning to be accepted after a long period of reluctance,
just as the Lamps were. And on this particular occasion the con-
nexions were not only Mixed but also Unknown.

During the remainder of August the scoring was poor, Ijoth with
the Straight and IMixed arrangements.

144

[part

G. N. M. Tyrrell : Further Research

Table XIX
24 to 3I.s^ August, 1935

No.

Conditions

124

1 (m

371

+ 39-8

22-4

(U) Mixed

125

700

135

-5-0

19-3

(K) Straight

The l)est scoring is here witli the Mixed and Unknown condition,
the figures for it l)cing just significant (()•()( )7) ; while the figures for
the Straiglit condition are jnire chance.

G.J. went away for a sliort time, during which certain improve-
ments were made to the apparatus.

(1) The Keys were provided with deeper mercury cups, so that by
no ))ossil)ility could l)rass come into contact with brass.

(2) An electrically worked Sounder was placed in front of the subject
under the edge of the table, which gave an audilde click as the signal
for o])ening a box. It was worked by raising a small lever beside the
o])erator’s Keys, which, at the same time, worked a counter to register
the trials. Henceforward, this Sounder was always used, and the
o])erator spoke no word except in the case of Precognitive trials.

(3) A screen, reaching from the table top to the floor was in-
serted, so that the legs and feet of the operator could not touch
those of the perci])ient.

(4) A Delay-action Relay was installed, the purj)ose of which has
already been referred to and will also be described later.

Tliese a])pliances, together with the Commutator, were designed
to rule out every possibility of normal sources of leakage and also
every chance of leakage through visual or auditory hyperaesthesia.

G.J. came back well on 14th September, 1935, but most unfor-
tunately, through an accident, caught a cold on 1 5th September, which
lasted till 11th October. The residts secured in the meantime must
be looked at from two points of view : (1 ) from that of the progress
of scoring with the Unknown Mix(*d condition, (2) from that of the
introduction of the Delay-action Relay device.

CouiparisoH of Knomi and Unhionm conditions between ISth Sept,
and mh Oct. 1935.

Table XX
\2th October, 1935

No.

/'4

Conditions

120

1900

4(il

+ 84

24 -I

■1-8

l0-« to 10^^

(K)

127

■4200

1018

1- 178

24-2

0-8

10-”

(U)

147]

in Extra-Sensory Perception

145

This shows clearly that the Unknown condition of using the Keys
has now become accepted by the subconscious of the subject and is
being used on an equality with the Known condition, after the long
resistance shown in its introduction on 15th June and after. Here is
a repetition of the same process which for so long a time refused to
score with the Lamps instead of the Pointer, but finally accepted
them. There is a strong confirmation in all this that the subject
has not been scoring by any normal means ; for, if there had been
any source of leakage, such as unconscious whispering or the hke,
or any number-habit raising the probability of success, which must
have been cut out by the use of the Commutator, then the score
would have fallen to chance whenever the Commutator was used.

Such a normal explanation would not account for the gradual rise
in scoring with the Unknown condition until it rose to parity with
the Known condition. Each time that a new external condition is
introduced it is met with failure at first and success later. There
is, therefore, some condition which is gradually changing ; and
this is clearly not an external condition ; therefore it must be an
internal condition. The whole process is shown grajjhically in
Graph II, where the dotted fine represents the Unknown condition
and is far below the full line at first, but rises together with it at
the end.

The Delay-action Relay

The same results have to be examined from the point of view of
the delay-action. The Delay-action Relay operates as follows.
When the operator depresses one of the Keys, a circuit passing
through one of the lamps is selected : but the lamp is not lit because
there is a break in the common return-wire of the lamp circuits.
W hen the box-hd is opened, this energises a relay, which closes this
gap in the lamp-circuits and the pre-selected lamp is lit. Thus, the
selected lamp is actually lit by the percipient’s own action in opening
the box-lid. (See DAR on the diagram of comiexions. A.) The
effect of this is three-fold : (1) It removes the ostensible event which
is exposed for the clairvoyant faculty, viz. the lamp lit in the box
beforehand ; so that, when the Commutator is used as well, the
knowledge required for telepathy from the operator is not there ;
and also the ostensible event presented for clairvoyance is not there
either. (2) It removes all possibility of knowledge being gained
through the percipient’s normal senses, whether hyperaesthetic or
not. There is first the auditory sense. It will be remembered that it
was said when the apparatus was being described that the five
relays in the lamp-circuits are each connected in circuit with its

146

G. N . M . Tyrrell : Further Research

[part

lamp, and tliat it was necessary to silence tliese relays very carefully,
because, if the sound of each could be heard and was distinctive
and recognisable, it would give a clue to the lamp which was being
lit. With the delay-action device, these relays, like the Lamps
tliemselves, are brought into action by the percipient’s own action
in raising the box-lid. Therefore, if it be supposed that these relays
are hyperaesthetically audible, they could now give no help in
scoring. (3) The question of the leakage of light past the box-lids is
solved by this device, since there can be no leakage of light before
the lamp is lit. And the same applies to any supposed radiation of
whatever kind which might be supposed to pass from the lamps
through the wood of the boxes to the percipient, there to affect
some unknown sense-organ in some unknown way. Or to any guide
given by a supposed rise of tem])erature of the box-lid when the
lamp is alight inside, even were this not ruled out by the speed of
working. All possible help from sense-stimidi of any sort is rendered
impossible by the use of the Delay-action Relay.

It is interesting to specidate as to what differentiation is left for
the percipient’s faculty to work on when the delay-action is used.
W'hen the key is closed by the operator, although no current flows,
the wires connected to the Keys are charged up as far as the break in
the circuit at the relay ; and it seems at first sight as if the lamp that
is going to })e ht will be raised to a higher potential than the others
and that there might l)e this differentiation for the faculty to work
on. But an examination of the connexion shows that this is not the
case. There is a common wire connecting all the Lamps together,
so that, when any key is pressed, all the lamps are charged up simul-
taneously. The only differentiation is the closing of the gap in the
key pressed ; and in order to know by clairvoyant perception which
lamj) will be lit, it is necessary to know what are the connexions
inside the Commutator.

Since this gronj) of results is fairly balanced as between the
Knowm and Unknown classes, it may be used as one group for com-
parison between Delay-action and Non-delay-action classes.

Table XXI

18d; tSepteniber to 12th October, 1935

No.

()

CoiuUtions

128

2150

620

-1 130

25-3

6-56

10-10

Non-delay action

129

3750

856

+ 106

22'8

4 -33

Delay-action

in Extra-Sensory Perception 147

The figure with the delay-action is not as good as that witliout it,
but it is ainjjly significant. Only the loosest reliance can be placed
on a comparison of external conditions based on a comparison of such
figures, since there is no guarantee that conditions other than the
one which the experimenter has deliberately altered have remained
constant. Probably the nearest approach which can be made to-
wards comparing external conditions in this kind of work is attained
by altering the condition in the middle of a block of 100 trials.
This was done in order to compare the delay-action and non-delay-
action conditions, as the change from one condition to the other can
be made by merely moving a small switch which does not interrupt
the experiment. Sometimes the delay-action was introduced into
the first 50 trials and sometimes into the last, the percipient being
always in ignorance of which was which.

Table XXII

Trials between V2th October, 1935 and 2bth January, 1936

No.

Conditions

130

1090

306

+ 88

28-0

6-7

10-10

Non-delay-action

131

1105

302

+ 81

27'3

6-1

10-9

Delay-action

These figures give about the best comparison that can be made
between the two external conditions, and the result shows that,
although both conditions give highly significant results, there is
practically no difference between them. However the scoring is
done, therefore, it cannot be by normal sense-perception or by hyper-
aesthesia.

It is interesting to note that, although with the delay-action, a
third new factor has been introduced, there seems to have been no
protest against it as there was at first against the Lamps and against
the Commutator. It is accepted from the outset, or rather ignored,
which is remarkable, as one would have thought that it would make
more difference to the operation of any faculty in the least like sense-
perception than the mere substituting of a lamp for a pointer. The
resistances ajipear to be rather against a condition giving the feeling
of strangeness than against what we should consider to be solid
difficulties placed in the way of Extra-Sensory Perception itself.

hnprovements to the Apparatus

On 16th November, 1935, the Keys, Synchronising Lamji and
Counter were removed from the percipient’s table and put back on
the operator s table. A screen 5 feet high from the floor was fitted

148

G. N. M . Tyrrell : Further lieseareh

[part

rouiul the two sides of the operator’s tal)le wliich were outwards
towards the room, the table being situated in tlie corner so that the
o])erator sits back to the wall. The wires connecting the two tables
were lengthened so that the taldes could be placed as much as 8 or
9 feet apart.

During the early j)art of January the contacts of the box-lids
were renewed, more efficient ones being substituted for those pro-
vided by the maker. The resistance-board of lamps was covered
with a metal screen ; and early in Feliruary, all the circuits of the
apparatus were made independent of one another so as to increase
its reliability.

Ex2)osure of the Event for Claimoyance

At the usual rate of working with G.J., lUO trials occupy from
GO to 70 seconds ; and, at this speed, operator and subject cannot
help working in a steady rhythm, which is no doubt helpful to the
phenomena, but which soon results in the 1)0X being opened at the
same instant that the key is 2)ressed, without any interval during
which the lamp is alight before the box is opened. It therefore
seemed desirable to test whether any difference could be perceived
lietween trials in which the lamp was alight well before the box was
o])ened (when the clairvoyant faculty has a well-marked event to
work on) and in trials in which the lamp was not alight until just
after the box was opened. Accordingly, some blocks of trials were
done slowly, the key being pressed from 3/4 to 1/2 second before the
signal was given to open the box. In the middle of the run, i.e. after
50 trials, the switch was thrown over which brought the delay-action
into operation, and prevented, without interrupting the series, the
lamp from being lit until the box was opened. Sometimes the
delay-action was in the first half of the series and sometimes in the
second, the subject never knowing in which half it was. Telepathy
on the part of the operator was in all cases ruled out by the use of
the Commutator. This gave the following result :

Table XXIII

\2th October to 25rd January, 1936

No.

Conditions

132

845

242

+ 73

28-6

6-3

10-9

Lamp exposed be-
fore I)Ox opens

133

855

224

+ 53

26-2

4-5

10-9 to

10 fi

No lamp till after
box opens

147]

in Extra-Sensory Perception

149

The results wlien the lamp was “ exposed ” are a little better than
those in which it was cut out ; but there is no evidence that the
lamp alight in the box beforehand is essential to success. Both re-
sults are far above chance. This tells us that success is possible when
there can be no telepathy and when there is no ostensible object for
clairvoyant perception until afterwards. It has the appearance of
j^recognition ; but a sufficiently elaborate theory of combined
clairvoyance and telepathy might be jmt forward instead.

“ Precogniiive ” Results

Certain blocks of trials were done in the following way. The box
was opened each time by the percipient about half a second liefore
the key was pressed. The Commutator was used on every occasion
to eliminate telepathy ; and the tape record shows in the case of
every success that the box was in fact opened before the key was
pressed by the amount that the trial line overlaps the success line
(sample of taj^e).^ These trials are called “ Precognitive ” because
they appear to be so ; they may be and, I think, probably are ; l)ut
it is not stated that there is no possible alternative explanation.
The results were :

Table XXIV

13f/i October to I3th February, 1936
No. T S d % X P Conditions

134 2255 539 -t-88 23-9 4-6 10~® to 10^® “Precognitive”

Since these cannot be due to chance, it is of interest to ask by what
other means, if not by precognition, they could have been obtained.
There can have been no telepathy because the Commutator was used
on all occasions. If there were contemporary instead of j^recognitive
clairvoyance, it would have had to be the 02:>erator who exercised it,
and not the subject. The operator must have known, perhaps by
telepathy, which box the subject had opened. After that, the
operator would have to resort to clairvoyance to penetrate into the
recesses of the enclosed Commutator, there to discover the cross-
connexions linking the Lani2)s to the Keys. Having sorted out the
right connexions, the operator must then have pressed the key cor-
responding with the box which the subject had opened.

The great difficulty in this explanation is that the writer was in
most cases himself the operator and cannot believe himself to be
endowed with the jJsychic powers which this exj^lanation demands.
These powers are entirely absent when he occu])ies the ])ercijhcnt’s

G. N. 31. Tyrrell : Further Research

150

[part

chair ; and, if he had tliem, surely they woidd not allow his subjects
to fail as most of them do !

Table XXV

Period covered, \2>tli May, 1935 to 30th March, 1936
Operator G.N.M .T. Percipient G.J.

No.

A’

Conditions

1.35

8700

1666

-74

19-1

Mech. Selector

136

3261

707

-t-.55

21-7

2-4

0-008

Keys Mech. Seld. Nos.
unknown to Op.

1.37

17842

4612

-el044

25-8

19-5

10-80

Keys known to Op.

138

10050

2.399

+ 389

23-8

9-4

10-20

Keys unknown to Op.

139

5768

1379

+ 226

23-9

7-4

10-12

Keys Delay Action

110

2255

540

+ 89

2.3-9

4-7

10-15

Keys Precog.

47876

11303

1728

2.3-6

19-5

10-80

Total

Table of Totals

The Tables so far given liave been for purposes of comparison
or to illustrate particidar phases of the experiments. Table XXV
contains all the results obtained under the conditions specified
under each heading lietween 13th May, 1935 and 30th March, 1936,
which is the period dealt with in the present report. But these
groups entail a certain amount of cross-classification, since it is
impossible to form groups which do not contain some element in
common, and this robs the figures of complete clarity. For example,
although No. 139 contains no results which appear in Nos. 137 and
138, it does consist of cases in some of which the connexions to the
lamps were known and in others unknown. It therefore cuts across
Nos. 137 and 138 and at the same time it withholds results which
would have l)oen included in these latter, but for the S])ecial, addi-
tional feature of the delay-action. There are also important con-
ditions, such as changes in the emotional tone or health of the sub-
ject, which undoubtedly influence the result and which would cut
right across the above classification ; and these have been omitted.
Hence it comes about that any attempt at a causal analysis of the
residts by dividing them into groups and attributing success to the
various groTips in projjortion to the rate of scoring is defeated by the
confusion introduced by the inevitable cross-grouping. Except
under very favourable circumstances, and then oidy very roughly,
group-conditions must not be correlated with rates of scoring.

147]

in Extra-Sensory Perception

151

There is a danger in ])ublishing such tables as the al)ove that the
reader may extract more information from them than they con-
tain. The most favourable case for comjjarison is between Nos. 138
and 139, for there the condition was in some cases c[uickly changed
in the middle of the groups of trials without the sulij ect’s knowledge,
and the indication is that the difference in the conditions, though
profound, made no appreciable difference to the rate of scoring.

Little more can safely be inferred from Table XXV than that
some factor other than chance has manifested itself in all cases other
than that in which the mechanical Selector was used. It looks at
first sight as if the mechanical Selector must have imposed some
condition which rendered scoring with it impossible. But one
learns to be wary in judging from first appearances. The reader is
referred to the remarks about the Selector experiments which were
made on p. 135. Also the results given in No. 136, which were made,
not with the Selector itself, but with numbers taken from the
Selector and transmitted through the Keys, have attained signifi-
cance. These experiments, although covering the period under re-
view, were in fact all made between 4th and 30th March, 1936, which
was a period of low scoring all round, and it would be imsafe to
regard them as representative.^ Again, results with mechanically
selected numbers were obtained when earlier experiments were
being made with the Pointer Apparatus in 1935, but which do not
come under the present period of review and these showed the much
higher rate of scoring of 28-5%. On the whole it would be safer to
suspend judgment for the present on the negative result of No. 135
and the barely significant result of No. 136 in Table XXV.

No. 141, which is the final total of all the previous groups in
Table XXV, includes the whole of the results dealt with in this
report. It must not be taken as indicating more than that the anti-
chance figures shown in the separate groups are not in themselves
chance fluctuations within the whole. This, indeed, is sufficiently
obvious in any case. Since many different conditions are pooled
together, the average rate of scoring in this table camiot be taken
to mean anything in particular.

Subsequently to the period covered by the report, further results were
obtained iir this class. About the middle of May, 1936, the inhibitory
influence of the Fisk shock began to disappear and iVIiss Johnson showed
signs of returning to her normal rates of scoring. Thus, between 4th March,
1936 and 2nd July, 1936, the scores for the condition in No. 136 were : Trials
7809 ; Successes 1841 ; Average rate of scoring 23-53'o ; ^ ; P lO^^^.

Also, since 18th June, 1936, positive scoring has begun with the mechanical
Selector itself. These results are of course impossible -with the Fisk method
of scoring.

152 G. N. M . Tyrrell : Further Research [part

Grouping of Successes

A ])oint of considerable interest sliows itself on the tape records.
Where series of trials have been successful, the successes are dis-
tributed very unevenly, tending to bunch together in certain places ;
and it has also been noticed that these batches of consecutive suc-
cesses correspond with times when the subject has the experience of
losing herself in the experiment. It should, in j:>rinciple, be possible
to determine whether this groujoing of successes is greater than could
be accounted for by chance, but this jtroblem has not yet been gone
into. On the surface, it looks as if the above chance scores of the
successful series of trials were due to these short periods of excep-
tionally high rates of scoring super-imposed upon the more evenly
distributed successes due to chance.

Indication of the Beep Level of Extra-Sensory Prehension

The way in which the results have emerged, lieginning with series
of failures and leading up to later successes, show that there is a
reluctance to acce2)t new conditions, but that this is not due to any
inherent difficidty of the percej^tual act itself but rather to hind-
rances or resistances in the ]:)ath of emergence. The indication is that
the variations in performance are due to variations in the conditions
on the lines of communication and not to conditions at the source of
the percejDtual process itself. Such a process must therefore take
place deep down in the personality of the subject and there is no
indication as yet that any condition has been discovered which
materially affects it.

Other Percipients

Besides Mi.ss Johnson, the three other percipients who scored
above chance with the Pointer Apparatus were Mrs Hemingway,
Mrs Bramley-Moore and Mr Miller. Mrs Hemingway’s results will
be dealt with below. Mrs Bramley-Moore did 1400 trials on the
electrical apparatus, but only attained a chance score. Mr Miller
has only quite recently begun experiments on the Electrical Ap-
paratus and it is too early to say what the result will be.

Relation of Health to Scoring

It is extremely difficult to determine any clear relation between
IMiss Johnson’s health and the rate of scoring with the apparatus,
because her health often seems to 1)e not of the best but in an
undehnable way. The following table, however, taken from
contemporary notes, shows how continually colds interfere with
results.

147]

i)i Extra- Sensory Perception

153

Date

Remarks

13th May, 1935 -

Began work with Electrical Apparatus.

20th May, 1935 -

G.J. with headache.

23rd-26th May, 1935

G.J. in bed with bad cold and cough.

27th May, 1935 -

G.J. up Init not well.

3rd June, 1935

G.J. lying on sofa with headache. Got up

to do experiments.

12th-13th June, 1935 -

Shght cold.

15th-19th June, 1935 -

Heavy cold.

24th June, 1935 -

G.J. left for holidays.

The weather in May and the first part of June was exceptionally
wet and cold. Unfortunately Miss Johnson and I had to be away at
different times, which entailed a long break in the experiments.

22nd-31st Aug., 1935 -

14th Sept., 1935 -
15th Sept.-13th Oct., 1935

13th-27th Oct., 1935 -

28th Oct., 1935 -

5th-23rd Dec., 1935

Experiments resumed. Then G.J. went
away for a short time again.

G.J. returned very well to resume work. *

G.J. caught severe cold and chill which
lasted for a month.

G. J. well during this period. Scoring good
at average rate of 24-3%.

Shock of Fisk discovery spoils scoring.

G.J. again with cold and cough.

Ill health again supervened from the end of January to the 10th
March, 1936. The only really good time during these two months
was the fortnight in the middle of October, which was cut short by the
shock of the Fisk discovery. This shows why work has been so
slow.

A New System op Scoring

I now come to an interesting and rather extraordinary discovery
which is due to Mr G. W. Fisk, who has kindly devoted a good deal
of time and trouble to taking part in this investigation. Mr Fisk
had acted as one of the 30 subjects tested with the Pointer Apparatus,
but had been unsuccessful in scoring. Afterwards he acted as one of
the agents with this apparatus when Miss Johnson was the per-
cipient ; and also as the agent with her in the experiments with
Zener cards. The results of all these have been dealt with above.

It was when trying the card experiments with Miss Johnson that
it occurred to him to try again as percipient, but this time with the
Electrical Machine. He had evidently been thinking things over
and the results he produced astonished us all.

154 G. N. M. Tyrrell: Fmiher Research [pakt

Tai'.le XXVI

2<S//a Orlohcr, ]'J35

No.

Conditions

142

]()()

+ 4

—

(K)

143

100

+ 15

—

(K)

144

100

.30

-1- 10

- -

—

(K)

145

100

+ 7

—

(Sel.)

14()

100

+ 11

- -

—

(Sel.)

142-144

,300

+ 29

4- 1 9

10 4

(K)

14.5-146

200

+ 18

3- 1 9

0-()006

(Sel.)

In Nos. 142-1 '14, witli the ordinary straight, known arrangement
of Iveys, he scored at an average rate of 20-5%. I then, without
saying anytliing, switclicd on the Selector, and he continued to
score with this at approximately the same average rate, viz. 29-0%.
The odds against tins latter score being due to chance are about ten
thousand to six.

Mr Fisk’s own ex})la, nation of liis success was tlie system by which
he was scoring. lie selected one box and kept on opening it until
a light appeared. Then he, immediately went on to another box,
which he chose at random, and continued to open that until a light
appeared there also. He then went on to another, and repeated the
operation through the series. I shall call this method the Fisk
Flexilde System. It was not at all easy to see why it should account
foi' the high rate of scoring, and 1 was scejdical. Mr Fisk’s theory
was that, after a success had I)een obtained in one box, there was a
slightly greater chance of ol)taining one at another box than at the
same again. Hut it was not at all clear why this should be so, since
the operator would jjrobably repeat a key about as often as the
mechanical selector would rejjeat it. In fact, I felt sure that this was
so in my own case as 1 had compared my own repetitions with those
in the tests of the Selector and was conscious of making them about
as often.

Hut the fact of the high scoring was jdain ; so on 2nd Dec., 1935,
four methods of scoring were compared, Mr Fisk being the per-
cipient. (1) The Fisk Flexible Method. (2) The same method,
exce])t that the ]>assing on to the next box was done in a rigid and
])redetermined order, thus excluding all sco])e for guessing. I shall
call this the Fisk Higid System. (3) doing from box to box in a
jiredetermined ordei' without ever rejieating a box. These three

147] in Extra-Sensory Perception 155

with myself as o])era,tor, using the Keys. (4) Method (1) witli tlie
Mechanical Selector. These gave the following results ;

Table XXVII

No.

Conditions

147

200

+ 22

3K)

0-00002

Method ( 1 )

148

200

+ 19

29-5

0-0002

Method (2) Mixed Cds.

149

300

+ 11

23-7

0-056

Method (3)

150

298

-7-6

17-4

—

Method (4)

This showed that the Fisk Rigid System scores nearly as highly as
the Flexible System. It showed that the Selector causes the system
to fail. And it showed that a rigid system which does not wait for
the light to ajjpear in a box before going on, fails to score above
chance. The scoring therefore depends upon waiting for the light.
These conclusions were confirmed by further experiments.

Mr Fisk and I then did two sets of experiments, using his Rigid
System, in which we changed places :

Table XXVIII

No.

Operator

Percijjient

C'ondition.s

151

152

2000

1400

607

431

30-3

30-8

0-303

0-308

G.N.M.T.

G.W.F.

G.N.M.T.

Fi.sk Rigid System

55 5) JJ

In this table p stands for the Probability of Success ; that is, the
number of Successes divided by the number of Trials.

It is very remarkable that these come out almost exactly the
same, the inference being that Mr Fisk and I must space our selec-
tions of keys in just the same way ; and it is j)ossible that every
operator would do the same, and that there may be a constant
difference in this respect between a human operator and a mechani-
cal one.

Further experiments were made, which are not here recorded,
repeating these results, and they bring out clearly one very striking
difference between scoring which is done by assuming a false prob-
ability of success and scoring that is done by an E.S.P. faculty.
The former is perfectly reliable and occurs every time an experiment
is made. The latter is most unreliable and is continually varying.

It was puzzling to know in what way the human selector differed
from the mechanical one, and four blocks of 100 trials, in which I

156

G. N. 31. Tyrrell : Further Research

[part

acted as operator, were checked coin])letely, key by key and entered
on squared paper in the form of a graph. These gave the following
information :

Frequencies

Table XXIX
\2>th February, 1936
Frequency of Selection op Keys
Operator G.N.M.T.

No.

Block

153

154

155

156

157

Averages

18-5

20-7

24-5

19-5

16-7

Mechanical Selector

158

159

160

161

162

Averages

22-7

19-5

22-0

17-7

18-0

There is a slight tendency on my part to favour the middle Key,
but it is not enough to be serious. Nor do the graphed records show
any signs of sequence number-habits.

Having graphed records both from the human ojierator and from
the mechanical Selector, it is easy to go through them according
to the Fisk Rigid System on paper without actually trying them in
jiractice. Using the same graphed blocks of records as in Table
XXIX

Fisk Rigid System on Operator and Selector Records

Table XXX

Successes, Rigid System

No.

Mean

163

30-3

Operator G.N.M.T.

164

21-7

Selector

147] in Extra-Sensory Perception 157

A sample of the graphed result No. 156 (4) is given al)Ove No.
159 (2). (See Graph 111, Nos. I ami III.) In Gra])h 111 the line
which runs through each table represents the mode of scoring with
the Fisk Rigid Method according to the fixed order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
Beginning wdth Box 1 the fine represents the repeated opening of the
same box until a success is attained and then the removal to the
next box which is shown by the line going on to the next column,
and so on.

Examination shows that the difference between the two is not that
the human operator selects one number more often than the Selector
does, or has any sequence number-habits, but that he distributes
his choice more evenly amongst the five numbers than jjure chance
would do. The result is that, if the percipient continues to open the
same box until a light appears, he will not run the risk of having to
wait so long with the human operator as he will with the mechanical
selector. It is not that the operator falls into preferences ; it is that
he is too impartial ! Until Mr Fisk thought of it, I have never heard
any critic make this ‘suggestion. If the human operator behaved
as the mechanical operator does in fact behave, he would feel that
he was favouring some numbers at the expense of others. So he is
more impartial than the Selector in the short run of 100 trials ; but
the selector evens things out and is impartial in the long run. If
Graph III be exammed, it will be found that in I there is no space
in any column longer than 8 trials : in III there is a space of 21
trials and one of 13. It is tins difference in the spacing which
allows the Fisk system to score.

The reader may be reminded that when deahng with Chance,
the meaning of the words “ equally hkely ” was considered. It
was said, “ That any one of five events is equally likely to hapj^en
means, in this sense, that if the trials are continued, the tendency
is indefinitely towards the occurrence of each of the five events an
equal number of times, that is one-fifth of the total, in the long run.”
But “ equally likely ” events will not be equally distributed in a
short number of trials.

Mrs Hemingway

The subject who had scored next best after Miss Johnson with the
Pointer Apparatus was Mrs Hemingway, Her average rate of
scoring with this had been 25-2% over 2000 trials, and the chance-
probability between 10“® and 10“®.

When tried with the Electrical Apparatus, her rate of scoring was
low, though the total result after 4400 trials was just significant
(P=0-00G). I wished to increase her rate of scoring l>y giving a

158

G. N. M . Tyrrell : Further Research

[part

suggestion wiiicli might help the sul)]iminal ; so 1 suggested to lier,
after Mr Fisk’s success with his method, that- for one occasion only
she should adopt the Fisk method of scoring and I told her that it
woidd automatically bring u]) the result, but that this would not be
due to her own faculty but to a change in the jmobability of success.
This may have been rash ; but I did not then believe in the Fisk
method and merely used it to give colour to the suggestion that her
score would go up. It did go up, of course, although at the time I
Ijelieved it was owing to the suggestion. After that I told her not to
use the Fisk method again, but I am afraid, without success. The
scores obtained were as follows :

Table XXXI

28d/ November, 1935. Mrs H enmigway and the Fisk Method

No.

/ 0

Conditions

165

500

123

+ 23

24-6

2-57

0-005

With Fisk Method
Suggestetl. Keys.

166

7439

2093

+ 605

28-1

17-5

10-67

After Fisk Suggestion.
Keys.

167

2381

471

-5

19-7

—

Selector.

This shows that the Fisk method sent the score up and that it
continued to go up after the method had been suggested ; also that
there w^as complete failure with the Selector.

Four blocks of 100 trials each of Mrs Hemingway’s were com-
pletely checked and graphed (one of these is shown in Graph III,
No. II) and these showed that she was using a mixture of the Fisk
method and guessing. The scores in No. 166 must therefore be
regarded with suspicion as probably due to the use of the Fisk
method. Mrs Hemingw'ay must. have been scoring without it to get
her results on the Pointer Apparatus, with wdiicli the Fisk method
cannot be used, and seems to have l)een scoring positively at a low
rate wdth tlie Electrical A2)paratus before the 28th November ;
l)ut the large increases in scores after that date are almost certainly
due to the Fisk method and must be discounted.

Miss Johnson and the Fisk Method

To what extent does the discovery of the Fisk method of scoring
affect Miss Johnson’s results ? I may as well admit that it would
have been better had I obtained some results which were checked
through in detail earlier in the investigation. But I think t hat the

147]

in Extra-Sensory Perception

159

arguments against Miss Johnson having used the Fisk method are
very strong. They are :

(1) Miss Johnson herself asserts that she never used it before it
was explained to her. When, after that, she tried it, it simply put
her off and reduced her score. She said that the rule of keeping
to one box till a light came merely confused her because she had a
feeling all the time that a lamp was alight elsewhere.

(2) The gradual acceptance of new conditions, when she simul-
taneously scored with an old condition and failed to score with a new
one, until finally she scored with both, are very hard to reconcile
with the Fisk mode of scoring.

(3) The extreme uncertainty and varial)ility of her scoring do not
point to the Fisk method.

(4) Operators who have used the Pointer A2)paratus are agreed
that the Fisk method cannot be used with it.

(5) The results which Miss Johnson obtained with mechanically
selected numbers could not possibly have been scored on the Fisk
system. (See. Table III and footnote on p. 151.)

(6) In the checked block of 100 trials shown in Graph III, No. IV,
there is no trace of the Fisk method. (Compare with Mrs Heming-
way’s result in Graph III, No. II.)

While the Fisk system was being discussed and tested {i.e. after
28th October, 1935) Miss Johnson did get into the way of mixing it
with her ordinary mode of scoring : and it had the effect of sending
her rate of scoring down instead of tip. With Mrs Hemingway it had
the opposite effect. This fact is shown very clearly in Table XXXII,
in which the scores for 2000 trials before and after the Fisk discovery
are compared (a) for Miss Johnson and {h) for Mrs Hemingway.

Table XXXII

Miss J ohnson

No.

Conditions

168

2000

501

+ 101

25-6

5-6

fO-io

Before Fisk discovery.

169

2000

440

+ 40

22-0

2-2

0-01

After Fisk discovery.

Mrs Hemirtgway

170

2000

445

+ 45

22-2

2-5

0-01

Before Fisk discovery.

171

2000

607

+ 207

30-3

11-5

10-29

After Fisk discovery.

It may be said, therefore, that while Mrs Hemingway’s results
with the Electrical Apparatus must be discredited on account of the

160 G. N. M. Tyrrell : Further Research [part

])robal)le large admixture of Fisk metliod, there is no reason to
discredit Miss Johnson’s.

Coincidence between Fisk Method rate of scoriny and Miss J ohnson'’s

It is remarkable that the rate of scoring with the Fisk Rigid
Method and Miss Jolinson’s average rate of scoring when at her best
are both close to 30%. This, at first sight, looks a very susiricious
fact, the more so since Miss Johnson’s rate of scoring fell oif very
much after the Fisk method was discovered. But it must be just
one of those coincidences which seem to be set like traps for the hasty
and unwary. The figures of Table III and at the foot of p. 151 are
alone enough to disprove it. The most plausible line for the critic
to take would Ijc to allege that there had been a mixture of the Fisk
method with guessing ; but personally I do not l)elieve that there
ever was before the Fisk method was suggested to Miss Johnson.
The system merely balks the genuine faculty with her.

The Fisk method is quite easily prevented (a) by the use of the
Selector or of mechanically selected numbers, or (6) by arranging that
the percipient does not know when a success has been scored. In
the latter case, there is no reason to suppose that the human operator
is not exactly on a par with the mechanical Selector.

Psychological Effect of the Fisk Discovery

The effect of the Fisk discovery on Miss Johnson’s scoring was
most unfortunate. In fact, from one point of view, the most im-
portant result of this discovery has been its psychological effect as a
deterrent and inhibitory influence on the subliminal. The suggestion
was made suddenly that there was some method by which scores of
the same order as those which Miss Johnson had been getting by
means of her faculty could be got by a quite normal and, as it were,
“ trick ” method. The exact explanation of the method and the
bearing it would have on the work of the past six months was not yet
clear. No better exani])le could be staged of the kind of thing which
it is the j^aramount duty of the experimenter to guard against or of
anything more likely to create a subconscious resistance against the
experiments as a whole. In point of fact, Miss Johnson’s power of
scoring dropped at once and from that date (28th October, 1935) to
the present time has never recovered. And it is interesting to note
that the falling off is not with regard to one condition only, but to all
alike. On J3th February, 1936, the rate of scoring showed signs of
picking up again, but illness sent it down soon after ; and at the
present time (March, 1936) Miss Johnson can scarcely get more than

147]

in Extra-Sensory PercejMon

1(51

chance scores with any condition, as a result of the dejwessive in-
fluence of the Fisk shock or of bad health or of l)oth.

The Fisk Method and Zener Cards

It is possible with the Fisk method to score witli Zener cards
under the same conditions as with the human operator in the aj)-
paratus. The simplest way to test this is to lay the shutfled pack out
in line face upwards on the table and, having decided the rigid order
to be used, go through the pack counting the successes. Different
orders can then be used with the same lay-out. Very high “ anti-
chance probabilities ” are obtained if the probability of success is
taken to be 1/5.

This was tested by both Mr Fisk and myself and Mr Herbert
kindly made some systematic tests which confirmed them.

Using an ordinary pack of 25 Zener cards Mr Herbert obtained
the following results ;

(1) Using the Fisk Rigid System and going through the pack in
10 different orders. ■}) assumed = 1/5.

Table XXXIII

No. T 8 d % X P

172 2500 620 +120 24-8 6-0 10-« to 10-«

or, put in a form giving the actual probability of success,
S/T=jj=0-2i8.

(2) When the orders were mixed by changing them within the
25 trials, the scoring on the whole sank to something like chance
values.

Table XXXIV

No. T 8 d % X P

173 2500 527 +29 21-2 1-45 0-07

(3) Putting four packs of Zener cards together to make one pack
of 100, and going through with the sequences as in (1) gave the
following result :

Table XXXV

No. T 8 d % A' P

174 2500 519 +19 20-7 0-95 0-17

This is a chance result and indicates that a pack of 100 cards is
large enough to give something near enough to random shuffling for
practical purposes, although a pack of 25 is not.

162

G. N. M. Tyrrell : Further Research

[part

(4) Finally, j)acks of 25 cards were drawn at random from a
well-slmffled pool of 100 cards and the same process of sequences
gone through again. Results :

Table XXXVI

No. T S d % X P

175 3000 611 +11 20-4 0-5 0-3

This again gives a chance result.

To sum up these results, it is possible by using the Fisk method
consistently to obtain highly significant scores with a pack of
25 Zener cards, but if a pack of 100 Zener cards is used, or more, the
effect of the Fisk method is practically wiped out. Or, alternatively,
if packs of 25 Zener cards are drawn from a well-shuffled pool of
100 cards or over the same applies. Changing the rigid order in the
course of an ex]ierinient, waters down the Fisk effect.

The reason of this Fisk effect with Zener cards has, of course,
nothing to do with the thoroughness of the shuffling to which the
pack is subjected. It is the result of the fact that it is impossible
to arrange the pack in a truly random order because the condition
is im])osed that five cards of each kind must be included in a pack of
25. In a truly random arrangement, this will very rarely be satis-
fied ; and the Fisk method scores because a shorter average space
exists between any diagram and a repetition of that diagram than
would be the case if the cards were arranged in a truly random order.

The Fisk Method and Dr Rhine's Results

The question arises how far the discovery of the Fisk method
affects Dr Rhine’s results. As has been said, the possibility of using
the method is easily annulled, whether by using a pack of 100 or
more cards, or by arranging that the percipient does not know when
he scores a success. But, in any case, as each call is entered as the
])ercipient makes it, it would be quite easy for Dr Rhine to know
whether any percipient had been using the method or not : and as it
would be very obvious and he does not mention it, presumably his
2)ercipients did not use it. It would be very unnatural to use it
unless it had been suggested. It would, however, be advisable in
any future exjjcriments that all investigators should rule out the
possibility of the Fisk method being used.

Conclusion

One surprising fact which has come into prominence in the course
of this investigation is the absence of any general disposition among

147] in Extra-Sensory Perception 163

investigators to regard the search for unknown modes of perception
as fundamentally a problem in psychology. One would have thought
that stress laid on this point of view, or emphasis given to the pri-
mary importance of psychological conditions in an inquiry into a
cognitive faculty, would have been in the nature of a platitude : but
it seems, on the contrary, that no truth is more in need of emphasis.
If it is alleged that success in E.S.P. depends upon a delicate balance
of psychological forces vdthin the subject ; or if insistence is laid on
the necessity for guarding the subject against adverse suggestions,
or on the necessity for fostering favourable emotional conditions :
or even if a departure is made from the bare numerical totals to show
how the paranormal factor emerges in the curious way in which the
experiments have developed, the attitude of a common form of
criticism is to regard all this askance as the excuse of a prej udiced
advocate, who is trying to cover repeated failures. Kepeated failures
do not need to be excused : they are merely a fact which investigation
discloses. The point is that the boot is on the other leg, for this kind
of critical attitude is in itself no centrally poised, scientific position,
for it is not even ready to accept on an equal footing every kind of
condition which experience shows to be necessary for success. In its
bias against the psychological and its over-emphasis of the physical,
it is, in effect, making the demand that a psychical phenomenon, in
order to prove its reality, must show itself to be a physical pheno-
menon. It is an attitude which would seem to be based, not on
scientific principle (for that, in its essence, is pure empiricism), nor
on any particular specidative or philosophical position, but simply
on an ingrained conviction, taken from practical life, that the world
of normal sense-perception supplies the criterion of what is probable
throughout the universe. Perhaps it goes even further, and suggests
that the sensuous world, because it is so familiar, must of necessity
be all-inclusive. In any case, the next step is that, non-physical
causes being unlikely, non-physical conditions are unimportant.
It is a standpoint based on a suggestion rather than on an argument,
for its underlying idea is not exphcit but exists as an unformulated
postulate secreted in the background. No suggestion could be more
inimical to pioneer work in psychical research than this, for it de-
stroys at the root the mental freedom which allows itself to be in-
fluenced equally by all kinds of experience.

Probably no one can be in touch with facts such as those dealt with
in Extra-Sensory Perce^^tion without reaching convictions based on
grounds which cannot be logically formulated ; and the writer
feels that he would be faihng to give a comj^lete account of the
phenomena of E.S.P., as they have fallen within his experience, if

164

G. N. 31. Tyrrell : Further Research

[part

he did not stress the conviction whicli he has of being in touch with
something very real. Tlie demand for logical proof, based on experi-
ment, in such a matter as this, is, of course, an obvious necessity ;
but it is doubtful whether, in the last resort, people are as much
impressed by logic as they are by sul)tle differences in the character-
istics of things with which they have grown familiar. There hovers,
somewhere behind the normal consciousness, a wide potentiality for
knowing, which, in moments when tlu' subject is raised a little above
the humdrum level of common life, and the frequently jarring ele-
ments of the self unite in a more couconlant synthesis, can reveal
itself uncertainly in outward s])eech or action ; and this state of self-
togetherness is marked by a feeling of internal harmony. It is a
state which one gets to know more certainly from personal contact
than from any numerical ]>roof ; and it is this, together with the
other psj^chological factors which have been detailed above, which
form the background of the subject. The writer’s conviction is that
future success in this field is likely to depend largely upon the extent
to which investigators and critics are both willing to accord these
conditions adequate recognition. Without this, the state of affairs
is not very hopeful ; for the conditions which make it possible for
these ])henomena to occur are being disregarded, while tlie conditions
which would render them evidentially valid if they did occur are
jealously maintained.

The account of the experiments which has been given above
slimdd be regarded as an interim rej)ort on an investigation which
is still in progress, and not as a summary of one which is complete.
So regarded, these experiments, in the opinion of the writer, warrant
the following conclusions : (1) That Extra-Sensory Percej^tion is an
unquestionable fact. No other ex])lanation will reasonably cover
the whole of the evidence. (2) Tliat E.S.P. takes ]>lace when the
possibility of tele])athy, as ordinarily defined, is excluded. (3) That
there is evidence ])ointing strongly in the direction of Precognition.
(4) That the faculty appears to be able to externalise its material
in the form of motor action, without a necessary conscious accompani-
ment ; and that consequently it is doubtful whether the faculty
falls conqdetely within the definition of a cognitive mode. (5) That
the records, as well as the subject’s experience, point to the cause of
above-chance scoring as being the existence of short periods of
mental dissociation iii which the rate of scoring successes greatly
exceeds chance and often apjuoaches 100%. Experience shows that
the occurrence of these brief periods of dissociation depends upon a
psychological background which is largely unknown ; but that it is
influenced by (i) ideas or suggestions which have been accepted by

147] in Extra-Sensory Perception 165

the subject’s subliminal and have taken root in it. These may be
of the most trivial nature, quite without rational foundation and
may be simultaneously disbelieved by the subject’s normal con-
sciousness. (ii) By a general emotional state including interest,
enthusiasm and happiness on the one hand or disappointment, de-
pression and boredom on the other, (iii) By the subject’s state of
health, which must be good if the right 23sychological state is to
supervene. (6) That the external conditions of the exjjeriments
should include : (i) The possibility of working at a high rate of
speed for two reasons, (a) to allow the paranormal im2:>ulse to run
the gauntlet of conscious associations without having time to become
entangled with them, (6) to avoid tedium, (ii) The possibility of
dealing rapidly with large numbers of trials in a way which makes
the minimum demand on the conscious attention of the subject,
(hi) The jmssibility of changing the conditions instantly, if jjossible
without the knowledge of the subject, and also without a j^ause, in
the middle of a series of trials. (7) That it is necessary for the in-
vestigator to deal with every subject individually and not to attempt
to treat subjects en masse. (8) Rhythm in working through a series
of trials is desirable. (9) The only method which adequately fulfils
these demands is a mechanical instrument.

Extension of the Research

The writer’s experience suggests the advisability of deahng with
each subject separately. But then, it may be asked, if this is done,
how is the extra-sensory faculty to be shown to be a human possession
in the sense of arising out of the normal structure of human per-
sonality at large, and not to ije a jjathological freak. The Collective
method of research may, on occasion, prove to be a useful auxiliary ;
but, in the main, it seems that the method must consist in the estab-
lishment of a number of centres in each of which an investigator
makes an intensive study of two or three selected subjects. In this
way the various lines of research could be specialised.

Since E.S.P. constitutes a psychological 2)robleni, it is important
that the co-operation of psychologists should be secured in the
attempt to solve it. What is needed 2)erha2)s more than anything
else at the present time is for the psychologist to devise a technique
for the effective control of tliose levels of the self below the conscious
threshold, which are concerned in the externalisation of extra-
sensory material. Such increased control would probably lead to
greatly enhanced results with the sensitive type of subject and
might even lead to the yielding of results by ordinary, “ uiqjsychic ”
persons. \\ e have above an interesting examj^le in the case of Mr

166

G. N. 31. Tyrrell : Further Research

[part

Fisk (see Table XXVI, Nos. 145, 146), who ap])ears to have been
exalted, in a moment of emotional enthusiasm, based on a rational
belief, to the pitch of scoring with a genuine faculty. If this has not
happened, there must have been here a remarkable freak of chance.
We need to know how to do artificially what occurs spontaneously
at rare moments such as this ; and the incident is one to bear in
mind as it gives the valuable suggestion that the extra-sensory
faculty may not be at all rare as a faculty of perception, but may,
on the contrary, be universal and inherent in the make-up of every
human being. The rare feature may be only its intrusion into con-
scious life, that is its externalisation. On this view the sensitive
would not be a person who owns a rare faculty of perception, but
only one in whom the ])ath of emergence is not completely blocked.
Will not psychologists help us to work out a technique which will
shorten the tedious ju’ocess l>y which the above results were ob-
tained ? Will they not give us some readier means of controlling
the self l)eneath the threshold ? It is a work well worth the attention
of orthodox science, since it promises not oidy to light up the recesses
of the human mind, but also to widen the perceptual channels on
which all knowledge of the outer world depends. We should like
to know whether the “ dissociated ” states of sensitives are not, per-
haps, many ; and if there may not be one of these which in particular
is necessary for the production of extra-sensory material. We
should like to know how to establish the particular state we want.
We should like to have, in general, a comjjarison of the make-up
of the sensitive with that of the non-sensitive, and some sort of map,
however rough, of the country we are trying to explore. If the
fashion which regards extra-sensory perception as scientifically
disreputable would become out of date, a field would be ojjened to
psychology of the greatest interest and imj^ortance to mankind.

Finally, I should like to express my sincere thanks to the President
as well as to the Council of the Society for the kind and generous
help which they have given me, and to various members for their
encouragement : to Mr Saltmarsh for his constant co-operation and
advice and for assisting with his handiwork in the construction of
the a])paratus ; to Mr Fisk for his assistance and for his valuable
discovery : to I)r G. C. Poole of New College, Oxford, and to Dr
R. A. Fisher for mathematical advice ; and to Mrs Hemingway as
well as to all who have so kindly given their time in acting as
subjects.

Gh I

Gr:, II

t • ' ‘ i t > ‘ ‘ (4 U < j I !f ; j i j } |TFiTITT!TiT;^yi i [

147]

in Extra-Sensory Perception

167

Graph IQ

I. Op. G.N.M.T.

n Per L.H.

12345 12345 12345 1234 5J

P = 0-2008

Sel.

12 3 4 5
15 18 24 22 21

Per G.J.

S=38

F.S.

23 19 20 19 19

p =01995

18 16 25 21 20

DIAGRAM A.

Cl C2 C3 C4 C5

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Society for Psychical Research

PART 148

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON EXTRA-SENSORY
PERCEPTION

(A Preliminary Note)

By J. Cecil Maby, B.Sc., A.R.C.S., F.R.xl.S.

Four points in Professor C. D. Broad’s recent presidential address
(vide Proc. S.P.R., Part 142, vol. XLIII) stimulate me to put for-
ward certain considerations in connection with, extra-sensory per-
ception, resulting from a series of experiments and observations of a
quahtative kind that I have made during the past few years ^ in a
personal attempt to satisfy myself, first, of the genuineness of such
phenomena and, second, of their psycho-physical modus operandi.
Special attention has been paid to the possible connection between
such cryptopsychic processes as telepathy and clairvoyance and
common-place sensorial perception. Recent observations and
speculations by Prof. Hans Driesch, Prof. Broad, Dr Rhuie and others
have, in fact, strengthened my own findings and ideas ; but I feel
that the time is, as yet, premature for their full discussion. It may,
however, not be amiss for me to advance one or two personal obser-
vations and ideas in relation to Prof. Broad’s paper without treating
the matter upon a statistical basis, despite the present mathematical
vogue.

(1) ... Prof. Broad questions whether it would be possible, say,
for an Enghshman, ignorant of the French language, to induce
telepathically in a Frenchman, who knows no English, “ a cognition
of a fact which the Enghshman knows or a proposition which he

^ As yet unpublished, except in two recent lectures to the Oxford University
Psychical Research Association. These experiments were commenced some
years ago, before the \vriter had seen the results of Dr J. B. Rhine’s and Mr
G. N. M. Tyrrell’s recent experiments.

169

170 J . Cecil Maby : Some Observations [part

cognises". He further recommends experimental investigation of
sucli a case, as did Mr Saltmarsh also in las report on the Warren
Elliott case, (Froc. S.P.R. vol. XXXIX, p. 128).

M'ithout having made experiments in this particular direction, it
occurs to me that, as most of us tend mentally to visuahse our ideas
quite as commonly as we verbahse them, such an agent’s conception
might happen to be translated in visual terms, or even directly, as
pure meaning-content, perhaps, without any recourse to verbal
symbologv. Moreover, after its primary (subliminal ?) reception,
the percipient might, conceivably, interpret the initial recept in
terms of his own sensory and/or verbal symbology ; e.g., the French
language. Such a process would, admittedly, be somewhat romid-
aboxit, but it should not, for that reason, be either impossible or
improbable, judging by the various forms that veridical hallucina-
tions are found to take — especially in spontaneous cases, but also in
*tlie seance room and even in the laboratory. As Mr Saltmarsh has
privatelv ]>ointed out to me. however, there are some “ meanings ’’
of a generalised nature (he cites emotional moods, tastes, smells, etc.)
that might not be translatable into visual symbology. But in
answer to that I would ask ; Can emotional moods be supposed
ever to exist in a non-specific sense, abstracted from concrete
sensations and ideas ? Personally, I do not think so. Moreover, it
is begging the whole question to assume that meanings, as such,
cannot l)e transmitted directly without translation into sensory
.'-ymbols. Indeed, evidence is not lacking to indicate that such may
be the case, in some instances at least.

(2) Prof. Broad very justly stresses several seemingly insuperable
difficulties in the way of any purely physical explanation of the
facts of clairvoyance — which category may, I believe, be fairly ex-
tended to cover many of tlie phenomena of dowsing, divination and
" psychometry".

As one who has not only carried out a fair number of experiments
in tele])athy, clairvoyance, dowsing and what Dr Rhine conveniently
terms undifferentiated extra-sensory perception, (in many of which
we were fortunate to score a good and significant proportion of suc-
cesses), but also acted as percipient in the majority of those experi-
ments. I should like to take this opportunity generally to confirm
Prof. Broad’s statement as well as the findings of Dr Rhine, as
recently given in his excellent treatise on E.S.P. Perhaps, too, it is
not amiss to add the following qualitative observations, in the hope
that they may stimulate others either to confirm or to disprove
certain speculations that my own experiments and records have
sugge.sted to me.

148]

on Extra-Sensory Perception

171

In our tests, we variously endeavoured to “ get ” a given object
either by pure clairvoyance, as with shuffled drawings or with pic-
tures in an unknown and unopened book ; by undifferentiated e.s.p.,
as with pictures, drawings, or words actually held and observed by
a supposed telepathic agent ; and third, by pure telepathy, as when
the agent only concentrated his attention on a given mental idea
or image, not sensorially upon a physical object. In all instances
where the selected object or image was a visual and pictorial one,
the extra-sensory perception (if successful) was also a visual one,
seen against the greyish blank of the vacant mind — much as was
lately described by Mrs Upton Sinclair, and as in visions of successful
scryers, etc. When, however, the agent’s “ message ” was a verbal
one, the percipient’s resultant “ hallucination ” ( = e.s.p.) was almost
invariably an auditory one, or else a somewhat vague idea of the
content of the “ message ”, expressing itself in verbal rather than
visual symbology. This was particularly noticeable in spontaneous
instances of telepathy of a simple kind. But it was also found in
experiments in which one of the keys of a piano or else one volume
out of a case of books of various colours had been mentally pre-
selected by one or more agents, that an extra-sensory percipient
tended to decide correctly upon the identical key or book, if the
agent(s) selected an object visually and specifically ; but that he
was often misled into deciding upon any one of the keys of a given
name, or upon any one book of a given colour, when the agent(s)
thought was in verbal rather than visual terms. ^ That is to say,
certain agents tended to transmit generalised and abstract, as con-
contrasted with particular and specific ideas ; corresponding to
their individual tendency to think in words and verbal symbols
rather than in “ objective ” sensory images.

It should be added that the foregoing observations have not
been repeated a sufficient number of times or with enough subjects
to be deemed conclusive or worthy of statistical analysis ; but our
qualitative observations, so far as they go, would appear to be both
positive and significant. In any case, the connection (if any) be-
tween the initial form of a given object or “ message ” of e.s.p. and
the ultimate form taken by the e.s.p. itself — or else the sensory
hallucination, should the e.s. stimulus happen to be especially intense
■ — is, I think, worthy of careful study. For it would, surely, be a
fact of the first importance, that there should exist a positive and
automatic inter-relationship between the object of extra-sensory
perception (whether existing physically and objectively, as in cases

1 This confusion may, of course, have been due to corresponding indecision
in the agents’ minds, though they themselves denied such indecision.

172 J. Cecil Maby : Some Observations [part

of clairvoyance, or else psychically and subjectively, as in cases of
telepathy) and the derivative e.s.p. itself. The present note, how-
ever, is intended merely to draw attention to such an eventuality ;
for it may well be that, in the qualitative and somewhat limited
investigation in question, we have voluntarily predisposed ourselves
towards forms of sensory “ hallucination ” {via e.s.p.) corresponding
in kind to the prime aspects of the original phenomena by virtue of
expectation and the selected aims and conditions of the tests. I
cannot quite believe, however, that the story ends there ; for it is
noticeable, in accounts of spontaneous veridical cases of telepathy
and “ travelling clairvoyance”, that there is a remarkable tendency
towards such a co-relationship as I have cited. Moreover, I have
been able to trace such a relationship in the maj ority of spontaneous
instances of my own collection. It would be a labour well repaid,
therefore, for one of our members to re-examine, in the light of the
foregoing hypothesis, all the veridical cases of extra-sensory per-
ception collected by the S.P.R., as well, perhaps, as some other major
collections, such as that of the late M. Camille Flammarion. This
enquiry I would gladly undertake myself, were it not for pressure of
much other work of an unavoidable kind.

As examples of striking agreement between the nature of the
original object or phenomenon and its e.s.p., the following first-hand
examples may be of interest, stated as briefly as possible.

(«) Visual e.s.p.

On a certain occasion I held in my hands, in complete darkness, a
large illustrated book, withoiit opening it or having any normal
knowledge whatever of its contents ; nor was the particular book
with its illustrations and the experiment conceivably foreconscious
in the mind of any other living person at the chosen time, since I
had drawn it at random and in the dark from a book-case containing
volumes previously unknown to me, and that, too, without the
normal cognisance of any other living person.^ Despite the strict-
ness of these conditions, I succeeded in visualising (though but
dimly, and without the clarity of normal perception or even that of
a vivid dream or hypnagogic illusion,) and describing correctly in
writing, before opening the volume, some 33% of the ninety illus-
trations it contained. Several of these were, admittedly, repetitive
in general type {e.g., pictures of mosques and pagodas) ; subsequent
examination of the other twenty-three illustrated volumes of the

^ Actually Vol. 12 of the 14th edn. Encyclopaedia Britannica, of twenty-four
illustrated volumes, that had freshly arrived and not been previously opened
by me or others in the house.

148]

on Extra-Sensory Perception

173

case, however, showed that my clairvoyant perceptions could only
have been said to agree — and then merely in a general and less
particular way — with from 1% to 15% of the illustrations in the
several volumes. Such a result was, therefore, highly significant.
Note that a score of 33% successes is about equal to Miss Johnson’s
average score in Mr T}’xreirs experiments in undifferentiated e.s.p. ;
though the chances of success by normal guesswork were very much
lower in the present instance, I believe, in view of the detailed
nature of the perceptions involved. I should perhaps add that I
tend about equally to visualise and to verbalise my thoughts and
imaginations in everyday thinking. Some of these pictures were,
moreover, of a sufficiently peculiar kind to be immediately and
specifically recognisable on opening the volume for normal visual
mspection ; for instance, plates opposite pp. 96 and 558, which were
very remarkably described as “ a kind of stained glass window, con-
taimng several mediaeval figures in colour ” and “ a number of
very curious shapes that I cannot quite understand, including a
large X, a row of little ovals, like miniature frames, with squares
below, and what looks like a close view of the human eye”. Eefer-
ence to the volume in question will at once show how dramatically
correct these dim perceptions were. They were, in fact, at once
and indubitably recognised upon opening and examining the book.

Note, moreover, that the pictures were seen (a) as if “ in a glass,
darkly”, (6) of approximately their proper dimensions, (c) normally
orientated, though some were actually face downwards as the book
was held ^ ; and (d) that, no effort having been made to discern any
of the verbal matter, no such matter was perceived extra-sensorially,
even in a blurred and undifferentiated way : — which confirms the
observations of Dr Ehine and others, namely, that e.s. attention
can be directed at will to any one particular object concealed
among many others opaque to the light and of a mutually conflicting
kind. 2

1 In other experiments re the perception of drawings by undifferentiated
e.s.p., however, the objects were somethnes perceived incorrectly orientated
or even in fragmentary form. In fact, ordinary spatial relationships were
commonly discounted in the e.s.p. (Cf. also similar observations by Richet,
Upton Sinclair and other previous investigators.)

- It would apjjear that the skilled diviner or dowser effects the same selection
unconsciously when he carries a specific sample of the object of enquiry, or
else consciously when he simply concentrates mentally on a single objective
or substance. But I have purposely omitted any consideration of such (highly
relevant) phenomena from the present paper, since they appear to call for a
separate and more detailed study, dealing with the employment of a rod or
pendidum for the purpose of recording delicate muscular automatisms in
telepathic and clairvoyant experiments.

174 J. Cecil Maby : Some Observations [part

Note, finally, that in another set of tests, the percentage of
successes was nearer sixty, or nearly doubled, when isolated illus-
trations (as judged by the different textures of the leaves of the,
then opened, book) were considered individually by e.s.p. This
observation — which, of course, also requires repetition on a quanti-
tative basis — suggests that e.s.p. may be (o) aided by some sort of
direction sign, and {b) dependent upon spatio-material factors after
all ; though tactile hyperaesthesia was not the cause, as I avoided
any contact with the sheets except at margins.

The following example of successful undifferentiated e.s.p. is also
very instructive ; though I might equally well have chosen others
for their special informativeness :

My assistant, completely concealed from me, though in the same
room, secretly thought of and drew a conventional heart on a piece
of paper. As, however, one half was slightly misdrawn, he re-drew
it in a deeper outline than the other side. He also, of course, con-
cerned himself mentally more with that half than with the other.

By e.s.p. I correctly visualised and drew the darker half of the figure
only. I represented it both correctly oriented and upside down.

Note that, as this was an undifferentiated case, it is impossible
to be sure whether clairvoyance or telepathy was responsible for the
result. I may say, however, that, in other similar experiments on
the transference of drawings by undifferentiated e.s.p., the results
as a whole pointed to more or less perfect clairvoyance as modus
operandi. But there were also instances — especially with certain
agents, whose cerebral processes are known to be relatively fecund
and intensive — wherein evident telepathy occurred ; for an alter-
native object, that the agent had also thought of, but not actually
drawn, was successfully registered by the percipient instead of that
drawn on the agent’s sheet. So too, if the psycho-galvanic reflex
is used to detect which object, letter or numeral out of a series has
been mentally pre-selected by a subject, & first choice will generally
be more readily detected than a second one, should the subject
happen to change his or her mind during the test.

(6) Auditory E.S.P.

One quiet Sunday morning my wife and I were lying in bed awake,
but not talking, at about 8 a.m. Our bedroom door and that of our
small boy, R, then aged three, were both ajar to a common landing.
We could hear R humming and talking to himself in his cot. Sud-
denly it occurred to me to endeavour mentally to “ project ” myself
to his room ; which I did forthwith, without word to my wife or
any accompanying sounds. In fact, I intently and suddenly imag-

148]

on Extra-Sensory Perception

175

iued myself at R’s bedroom door, rapping on it loudly. In instant
response there came a call from his room ; “ Who’s dat 1 ” and
then “ Daddy 1 ”, in an enquiring and startled tone. I explained
to my wife what had happened on my side, then went in to R, and
asked him what was the matter. He said ; “ Someone knocked on
the door. You knocked, daddy ! ”

It only remains to add that I did not normally knock thus on the
child’s door, and that his immediate response and comments were
equally unusual and dramatically convincing. Note, moreover, the
excellent agreement between the determination to knock loudly and
suddenly on the door and the resultant e.s.p. I had, in fact, concen-
trated on the imaginary act itself and not on transmitting any mere
idea to R. My wife, incidentally, neither heard nor suspected any-
thing.

Several equally successful examples of auditory e.s.p. between
R, my wife and myself have been recorded, but the foregoing will
suffice.

One evening when he was in the (normally) deepest period of
sleep, I went very quietly into the same child’s (R’s) bedroom, which
was dimly lit by a light shining in from a summer evening sky. I
first stood silently in the room for some three minutes to make sure
that R was sleeping soundly and undisturbed by my presence.
Then, without any actual movement or disturbance, I suddenly
imagined myself to be laying a cool hand on his forehead. After
two or three seconds, the child sighed, stirred in his sleep, turned
his head once or twice from side to side — as one would be inclined
to do in the circumstances, if real — and finally turned over on to
his other side. At the same time, in imagination, I withdrew my
hand : he then continued to sleep peacefully and I left him.

This and several similar experiments made with this child and
others possess, I believe, an additional significance in that telepathic
transference was successfully achieved during the period of profound
and apparently dreamless slumber, between one and three hours
after the subject had fallen asleep ; suggesting very strongly that
the psychic organisation remains accessible throughout the deepest
physiological repose. The short delay between the application of
the psychic stimulus and the resultant physiological response (also
observed on other occasions in two human subjects and a dog)
might very well be attributed to physiological rather than psycho-
logical sluggishness ; it taking, let us suppose, some moments —
depending upon the depth of bodily slumber — for the psychic will

176 J. Cecil Maby : Some Observations [part

to bestir the organism and sufficiently to lower synaptic resistances
within the nervous system in order to permit of impulse passage and
neuro-muscular control.

[d) Umlifferentiated E.S.P.

A Miss W., an undergraduate of Celtic race and temperament,
known to possess a fair degree of sympathetic “ psychic ” faculty,
was staying in our house. One Sunday evening she was studymg
alone np in her bed-sittingroom while my wife and I were down-
stairs in our drawing-room. Miss W., be it noted, was not in the habit
of coming down to our room, except very occasionally, on some
particular errand, nor had we any reason to expect her at the time
in question. Now it happened that, unknown to Miss W., my wife
and I had been discussing telepathic phenomena, and we decided,
there and then, to see if we could will our guest to come to the
drawing-room. Accordingly we both concentrated our thoughts on
our subject, fancying her in the room upstairs and wishing her to
come down to see us. In less than a minute Miss W. knocked at
our door, and entered. I said : “ Hullo, M., do you want some-
thing ? ” She was, however, very hazy as to her reason for coming
down, and excused herself, saymg that she had “ wanted to ask us
something, but really didn’t know what it was ” ; and she thereafter
seemed to search vainly in her mind for an explanation, looking
confused and nonplussed. We then explained what we had done.
iMiss W. agreed that our wishes had undoubtedly been the cause of
her coming, but could recollect no special sensation or hallucination
other than a sudden urge, of a vague and non-specific sort, “ to
come down and see us or ask about something”.

Subsequently, the experiment was twice repeated successfully and
twice failed — probably owing to mental preoccupation of the sub-
ject. On each occasion the motor impulse emerged in the subject’s
supraliminal mind as some trifling excuse of her own imagining,
and there would appear to be little doubt that the extra-sensory
impnlse was itself received subliminally ; any subsequent or con-
comitant sensory-motor act being seemingly analogous to the auto-
suggested acts and hallucinations that have been so frequently
recorded of suitable subjects during hypnotic and post-hypnotic
states.

(3) The foregoing experiments with Miss W. (and others) also
remind me that Prof. Broad referred, in his address, to the lack of
introspective evidence of any primary awareness in e.s.p. — i.e.
feelings equivalent to those experienced in connection with the use
and nwdus operandi of the normal sensory channels — on the part

148]

on Extra-Sensory Perception

177

of clairvoyants, say. Such a statement might be extended to cover
many cases of both spontaneous and experimental e.s.p., in which
actual sensory hallucinations do not occur, but merely generalised
(usually rather vague or else simple) “ feelings ” and ideas ; also
automatic script, other than that of the “ telephone conversation ”
variety, tiptology, divining by rod or pendulum, and other motor
automatisms. But it should be borne in mind that we have no
right, and it is, in fact, begging the question, to term “ clairvoyance ”
that form of metagnomy, common to trance mediums, psycho-
metrists, dowsers and diviners, in which the visual sense is not
stirred into activity. Indeed, the experiences of certain exception-
ally sensitive dowsers, as well as the utterances of mediums such as
Mrs 0. Leonard, and many instances of spontaneous telepathy all
point the same moral ; namely, that e.s.p. is primarily a subliminal
and unconscious affair, which subsequently and quite secondarily, by
auto-suggestion and bestirring of the imaginative facility, tends to
create a variety of sensory haUucinations, of which visual and
auditory forms are most common — presumably by reason of our
habitual chief usage of those senses. ^

Now, if extra-sensory perception is, indeed, always primarily sub-
hminal and unperceived, as such, then Dr Rhine’s convenient
expression (e.s.p.) is seen to be unjustified and undesirable in the
same way that “ clairvoyance ” and “ psychometry” , as generally
used, are undesirable. Had we not, then, better restrict ourselves
to one of the well estabhshed and more general terms, such as
paragnosis, metagnomy or cryptopsychy ? Of the three, Crypto-
PSYCHY is, I would suggest, to be strongly recommended on account
of its non-committal nature.

(4) Prof. Broad ridicules the idea that there can exist such a
psychic state as one of “ unconscious thought ” (vide bottom of
p. 433 to top of p. 434 of his address, loc. cit.) : this with reference,
I take it, to the supposed mind-reading of his given passive “ agent ”
(M) by an active “ percipient ” (N). Thus he says with reference to
discursive cognition : “In most cases it seems certain that the
person from whom the cognition was telepathically derived was not

1 It would be interesting, in this connection, to find out whether — as one
supposes — the pictorial artist and strong visuahser would be prone to clair-
voyance as a form of e.s.p. ; whereas the musician, the poet and the literary
dramatist, say, tended to clairaudience as a general rule. Blind and deaf
(acquired not bom) persons might also be worth consideration. In Beethoven,
for instance, the imaginative power of the “ inner ear ” remained unimpaired — •
possibly it was enhanced — by the decay of the peripheral organs of hearing : a
condition analagous to that of the maimed soldier, who feels pains in a limb
that no longer exists.

178 J. Cecil Maby : Some Observations [part

thinking at the time of the fact or proposition concerned”. And of
the idea of unconscious, or sublimmal, thought on the part of the
“ agent ” he remarks : “ This, however, would be a wholly gratui-
tous assumption for which there is no independent evidence, and I
shall ignore it.”

By denying the existence of miconscious activity. Prof. Broad
would appear to deny those multifarious activities of the dreaming,
subliminal,^ hypnotic and entranced mind and of sub-personalities,
etc., that have been so prolifically recorded by students of Psycho-
logy and Psychic Science. Of those copious phenomena Prof. Broad
himself is, naturally, well aware ; and to anyone who has witnessed
them their reality is beyond all manner of doubt. Yet Prof. Broad
would appear to maintain the belief that psychic acts are invariably
and solely supraliminal ; although I understand that he is prepared
to accept the existence and “ potential energy ” of subliminal
memories in a latent and quiescent state — as memory traces, not
as active thoughts, ideas and sensations, that is to say. Critical
analysis, however, shows, as J. Buys, in his work on the functions
of the brain, argued many years ago, that every single rmit — or
moment-content, as Sidis termed it. — of conscious thought is so
complexly conditioned by and dependent upon a co-existent multi-
plex system of other mental (and/or cerebral) units that it cannot
possibly be considered as an isolated or momentary phenomenon.

Now suppose that a moment-content of (fore)consciousness be
likened to one out of a succession of notes forming a tune as played
by an automatic pianola ; then the pianola keyboard, strings, etc.
may be taken to represent the animal’s entire central nervous
system, the electric motor or other source of power to represent its
vital energy, and the perforated roll to be equivalent to the whole
subliminal, but coexistent ideational content of the mind, that
conditions and precisely determines each individual note of the
melody or thought-train. But most significant of all, the initial
composer of the music will find his counterpart in the individual
Will or Central Psyche of the animal personality in question, whose
jjurposeful and, in some unknown manner, energetic guidance and
control first determine the melody, and then utilising the mechanical
energy, precipitate, as it were, into space and rnatter (as bodily

1 In fully developed automatism — as I have satisfied myself by means of an
automatic recorder connected to a specially arranged tiptological device —
the foreconscious mind, or primary personality, if you will, can occupy itself
conversationally, say, while the other component involuntarily spells out
coherent “ messages ”, and supplies, may be, cryptopsychic information into
the bargain. Some, if not all, of these messages obviously come from the
automatist’s own mind, though cpiite subliminally and unconsciously.

148]

on Extra-Sensory Perception

179

action and sensation) wliat was previously “ potential ” in time
and mind. But it is important to note that ideas and mental
units must, surely, first possess some real energy of their own before
they find supraliminal expression in consciousness and physical
action, no matter whether such energy be termed potential or
actual !

From this analogy — in the general correctness of which I, per-
sonally, place my faith, despite such crudities and imperfections as
it may entail — we see that there is every reason to assume the co-
existence of vast ideational complexes or thought trains in what may
conveniently be termed, with Myers, the subliminal mind. More-
over such psychic entities should not even be thought of as serial
structures — except for the artificial jiurposes of psychoanalysis.
They are, rather, integrated and unified in the sense that a natural
panorama is, in fact, integrated and unified ; and they only appear
to possess a serialism or “ grain ” (like the pictures of a cinema film
or the perforations of a pianola roll) when spatio-materialised and
analysed in the form of speech and writing or other pantomime.
Continuity, however, may be re-constituted when these symbols
have been somehow absorbed and translated back into thought in
the mind of another animal of the same race and species ; though
seldom in perfect agreement with the original, unfortunately.

The sum of the foregoing argument is this : that there is every
reason, logically speaking, to suppose that the spot-light of what
we term attention or awareness only illuminates a very small and
trifling patch of the whole vast content of the otherwise sensorially
subhminal mind ; much as the policeman’s bull’s-eye throws light
upon but a trifling fragment of some great city, of the rest of the
machinations of which he is, at that instant, blissfully ignorant.
Now, for the policeman to state that the rest of the world was non-
existent or inactive, simply because he had no perception of it,
would clearly be unpardonable. In like manner, I suggest, that it is
unpardonable to speak of the subhminal mind as being necessarily
altogether quiescent or latent — much less non-existent — simply be-
cause the moving beam of foreconsciousness happens to illuminate
it only point by point. Indeed, had not our primary psychic intelli-
gence a very much wider grasp of the mental structures under its
control than we imagine it to have, when we deny the existence of
unconscious thought, etc., coherent and logical reasoning would be
impossible ; still more so the “ inspirations ” of genius.

I gather that Professor Broad, while admitting the existence of
the subliminal mind, with its memories, as a sort of reservoir or
more or less materialistic filing cabinet, would differ from the view

180

J . Cecil Maby : Some Observations

[part

here sponsored, in that he would deny actual activity to the sub-
liminal mind, and prefer to regard it as a potential state of knowing,
or “ disposition ” to know, certain facts — i.e., memories and
experiences.

Everyone is familiar with the experience of havmg had some
argument or idea all ready worked out in the back of his mind for
exposition, and then accidentally lost the tag or clue to the whole
affair, while knowing full well that it was still there and active, in
the sense of being “ on the tip of the tongue ” ; though temporarily
“ potential ” and somehow inhibited from emerging into full fore-
consciousness : — then we may safely affirm that subconscious ideas
and aggregates can and do exist in a subliminal phase, latent and
“ unconscious ” ^ if you will, but none the less real and “ vibrant”.
Their dynamism, however, happens either to be below the energy
level at which they cause nerve impulses to overflow at the synapses,
thus setting in action various neuro-muscular mechanisms, and
expressing themselves objectively and consciously, or else they
simply happen to lie, temporarily, out of the immediate focus of
interested attention.

If, then the entire mind, with all its memory and ideational con-
tent be termed the subliminal, “ subconscious”, or “ unconscious ”
mind ; the supraliminal or foreconscious region may be said to
consist merely of a relatively minute and peak-like portion, which
has, through force of subjective or objective circumstances, momen-
tarily risen to such an energy level — to use a physical expression —
as to surge up and “ spill over ” or, “ precipitate itself ” in the form
of neuro-muscular and sensory activity. Moreover, we And our-
selves vaguely aware at the same time of a sort of conditioning
environment of other associated ideas that have just expressed, or
are just about to express, themselves explicitly, in hke manner.
We are also yet more dimly aware of an indifferentiated and in-
creasingly “ distant ” background of thoughts that we know to
belong to the thought train, or psychic melody, at present in process
of self-expression. We cannot, however, usually quite deflne or grasp
this great residuum ; though we can, with a little introspection, sense
that it gradually and in many diverse directions links up with and
roots deep iirto the rest of our potential, latent or subliminal mind.
We also know that the pattern and content of each association
plexus is subject to subliminal modiflcation and that fresh associa-
tions are ljuilt up without any conscious and voluntary attention
on our part, as primary personality or “ observer number one”.

1 Naturally I jJrefer the term subliminal to either subconscious or uncon-
scious, as it appears more truly to tit both psychological and physiological facts.

148]

on Extra-Sensory Perception

181

The entire mind, therefore, may be supposed — and, indeed,
directly “ felt ” — to exist at an infinite number of energy levels, of
some sort, proportionate to the relative intensity of what we call
consciousness. In that case, zero level might be said to correspond
to absolute ignorance or absolute forgetfulness (if there be such a
thing) of a given phenomenon ; i.e. non-existence of any co-relative
idea in one’s mind. Reasoning thus, it is conceivable that a crypto-
psychic percipient should successfully “ tap ” and cognise the
contents of a given “ passive ” agent’s mind, provided that such
contents possessed a fair positive energy value, even though they
were below the limen of consciousness of their proper owner at the
given time. In that case, “ mind reading ” might be accepted as a
very fair term to describe the process.

Finally, it seems hkely to me, all things considered, (1) that
consciousness 7nay very well be concomitant with the passage of nervous
impulses across a synapse : — no overflow, no consciousness or aware-
ness ; and (2) that the relative intensity of consciousness may be
represented as a joint function of the relative resistivity of the active
synapses and of their applied nervous potentialsd

Consciousness, thus regarded, is equivalent to a physiological
process : the precipitation, so to say, of something out of mind and
time into matter and space, or the materialisation of an idea. In
these circumstances also, when a sensory impulse across the synapses,
due to the stimulation of the peripheral nerve endings, occurs, the
reverse thing will happen : consciousness will again arise in the
organism’s body-bram system, and a memory thereof be stored in
the immaterial and temporal psychic organisation. In what manner
such translations may occur I do not, of course, pretend to know ;
and I freely admit the dfificulties of comprehension that he in the
way of any such hypothesis as that ably put forward by the two
Bousfields in their provocative work “ The Mind and its Mechanism”.
Similar difficulties, however, exist in modern physics in regard to
the problems of material radiation and absorption of energy. So
that we need not be imduly disheartened by any mere difficulty of
comprehension, especially since there appear to be good reasons
for the purely mechanistic of physical memory traces to fall into
disrepute, as McDougall and others have already pointed out.

But besides auto-consciousness, thus considered as a semi-mechan-
ical affair, there is also, undeniably, a second factor, namely attention,

1 The magnitude of the resultant nerve current might be roughly equivalent
to the intensity of sensation, and a law similar to Ohm’s law for electrical
conduction might be found to express the whole situation, speaking from the
physiologist’s point of view.

182

J . Cecil Maby

[part 148]

which is clearly controllable by the Will. And this is true to such an
extent that either (a) elements that would otherwise remain un-
conscious, or but dimly so, can be voluntarily stimulated into action
by proper searching and focusing with the spot-light of attention,
or {b) strongly auto- and sensorially stimulated elements can be
more or less disregarded in favour of weaker ones, by a voluntary
diversion of attention. I mention this aspect of consciousness, in
passing, lest it should be thought that I favour a purely mechanistic
and materialistic view of the nature of Mind and Will — which is
far from being so. I do believe, however, that one cannot safely
afford to neglect the nervous mechanism — memory traces or no
memory traces — and the various formations, limitations and reper-
cussions that it patently impresses upon the mind and spirit of its
own metaphysical possessor and, one may perhaps believe, original
creative architect, the individual Ego or central psyche. In other
words, the central psyche may be supposed to represent not only
the initiator and foundation stone of the living organism, considered
both mentally and bodily, but also the final recipient and beneficiary
of the psychophysical experiences of that organism during its
incarnate existence.

SOME COMMENTS ON MR TYRRELL’S PAPER ON
INDIVIDUALITY

By H. F. Saltmarsh

In his most interesting and suggestive article on Individuality
published in Proceedings XLIV, Mr Tyrrell discusses a problem
which is fundamental both for psychical research and philosophy.
As a full and free discussion of this matter may possibly result in
some hght being thrown upon its obscurities I venture to make a
few comments on his arguments and to put forward a few sugges-
tions. Though I should succeed in accomplishing nothing towards
a solution of the many difficulties, it may be that, if the ball be
kept rolling, others far better qualified than myself will be tempted
to take a hand in the game even if only for the satisfaction to be
derived from exposing the errors of other people.

Mr Tyrrell’s first question, “ What is it that is characterised by
word association tests ? ” contains, as questions frequently do,
several tacit assumptions. He assumes, for example, that some form
of dualism as regards body and mind hold good. If one adopted a
monistic theory the answer to his question is obvious. As there is
only one element in personality it must be that which is characterised
by the word association tests, assuming, as I suppose we do, that
they actually characterise something.

However it seems pretty clear that whatever type of theory be
adopted, whether, that is to say, one is a monist, a dualist or a
pluralist, whether one accepts emergence or not, the physical, if
there be such, must play some part in the word association tests,
the psychogalvanic reflex and all the rest ; for the response to these
tests is given by means of the physical organism just as the tests
themselves are received through it. Even if one be a subjective
idealist of the purest water and deny altogether the reality of matter
there is always that inconvenient illusion of matter which will mix
itself up in all our doings ; and even an illusion, especially one which
is so good an imitation of reality, can produce its effect. Further,
Mr Tyrrell assumes the stratification hypothesis, i.e. that hypo-
thesis which postulates levels and thresholds in the mind. I do not
doubt that his question could be framed to make it applicable to the
monadic hypothesis equally as well.

His second question, which deals with survival, contains several
other assumptions besides those mentioned above.

183

184 H. F. Saltniarsh : Some Comments on [part

If the stratification hypothesis be adopted we cannot assume
without examination that the division between supra- and subliminal
persists after death. It may quite well be that this is imposed on
the mind solely as the result of its incarnation and that it is not an
intrinsic feature of mental structure. On the monadic hypothesis
it may be the whole hierarchy of monads which survives, or the
dominant and some of the subordinates, the dominant alone or else
some supra-dominant monad, if such there be — what Myers called
the transcendental self. I suppose that it is theoretically possible
that the only survivor might be one or a group of the subordinate
monads, though it is doubtful in such case whether that would be
called a survival of the personality. There are other possibilities
which I will not mention lest I become too tedious.

F urther Mr Tyrrell assumes that the separation between mind and
body is complete at death. Doubtless the gross physical body is
destroyed but I do not think that Sir Oliver Lodge’s suggestion of
an etheric body can be summarily dismissed. I do not know of any
positive evidence for its existence but it is at least a possibility. And,
if I may make an even more fantastic suggestion, it is theoretically
possible that some very small part of the physical body escapes at
death and remains attached to the mind. Until incredibly accurate
and apparently impossible experiments in weighing, etc., just before
and just after death have been performed this cannot be entirely
ruled out. I admit that the suggestion is perhaps absurd and not to
be taken seriously, all I claim is that it is not impossible.

My object in mentioning these alternatives is to show that the
whole matter is so complex, that what little knowledge we have is
so vague and unreliable, that speculation is, to say the least, pre-
mature ; besides we are by no means sure that there is survival at all.

Mr Tyrrell then asks, “ What is individuality ? ”

Now it seems to me that Individuality is a relative term. What
may properly be termed an individual from one point of view a,nd
for one purpose of discourse, is equally properly termed a plurality
from another point of view and for another purpose. A chair is
undoubtedly individual if I want to sit on it, but to the cabinet
maker who is making it each leg is an individual. Mr Tyrrell says
that a block of water is “ just stuff ”, but some blocks of water, such
as, for example, waves on the sea, may be highly individual and
must, in certain circumstances, be treated with the respect due to an
individual, as those who are accustomed to sailing in small boats
know only too well. If they are not so treated they may make their
individuality felt in unpleasant fashion by breaking aboard and
filling you up. The lines of demarcation by which we divide up

148] Mr TyrrelVs Paper on Individuality 185

the external world into individuals are purely arbitrary and this
apphes to some extent to human beings as well as to inanimate
objects. We may legitimately speak of Parliament as an individual,
or of the various subdivisions thereof, such as the Cabinet or the
Opposition, as individuals, yet they are all made up of individual
members.

But as regards the self I think that the position is somewhat
different. In spite of all the facts which seem on the face of them to
point to the opposite conclusion, I have an inescapable conviction
that I am, somehow or other, fundamentally one and only one person.
Behind the phenomena of dissociation, multiple personality, sub-
conscious mentation etc. there looms the unitary I.

It may be that this instinctive conviction of unity is nothing more
than an illusion, or perhaps an a priori form of thought. If the
category of number be imposed on reality by the mind in the same
way as Kant taught that time and space are imposed, then the real
personality is neither one nor many. However, as we cannot help
thinking in these terms it seems that we are ultimately forced back
to unity if we carry our analysis far enough, for the simple reason
that, having arrived at unity, we can go no further. The unity at
which we arrive may not, of course, be a personality. Atomistic
theories of consciousness are rather discredited nowadays, but
there are others more respectable which take this standpoint, e.g.
Professor Broad’s theory wherein the self is held to be made up of a
physical body and a psychic factor, neither of which, if capable of a
separate existence, would be a self. Further, it may be that the
unity of the self is an unity of form or structure rather than an unity
of substance, just as the unity of the physical body persists in spite
of the change which goes on in the cells which compose it, or as
Parliament remains an unity though some members may resign or
die and be replaced by others. But then the question arises. Is not,
in the last resort, everything which exists only form and is pure
substance anything more than a metaphysical abstraction ?

MacTaggart defined substance as that which possesses qualities
and stands in relation yet is not itself a quality or a relation. If
this be a correct definition it seems that individuality can only
attach to substance in virtue of the qualities which it possesses,
that is to say in virtue of its form.

However if Bergson be right, form is continually changing, so we
cannot base individuality on the persistence of form. All that is
left for us is some sort of continuity of history. I do not profess to
be competent to form an opinion on the validity of BergsonA doc-
trine, but, whether it be universally true or not, I think that it is

186 H. F. SaUmarsh : Some Comments on [part

ol)vious that most of the individuals with whom we are acquainted
are forms in a state of flux and that the usual criterion which we
apply is the presence or absence of continuity of history. It is true
that we do not always demand unbroken continuity when applying
this criterion but are willing to overlook some gaps. I think that
this would give the answer to Mr Tyrrell’s question about the man
who lost and then recovered his memory.

After all, as I have said above, individuality is relative to the point
of view and this may be well exemplifled by the hypothetical case
which he cites. Whatever view a psychologist might take as to the
persistence of individnality in such a case, there is no doubt that a
lawyer would hold that loss of memory would not entail loss of
individuality, that rights, such as ownership of property, and duties,
such as liability for debts, would remain nnaltered.

The psychologist, however, wonld very probably not accept the
legal standpoint, unless he happened to be one of the man’s creditors,
and it would then depend on what criterion he employed in judging
individuality and how strictly he applied that criterion. If contin-
uity of memory be adopted, he must be prepared to decide whether
the gap is or is not sufficiently large to constitute change in individ-
uality, for gaps of some size he must in any case overlook. But he
might take continuity of moral and intellectual character as his
criterion, he might say for example that the man remains morally
and intellectually the same individual, subject, of course, to the
effect of the shock of loss of memory. But as his character is always
changing under the influence of events which happen to the man,
this shock, though exceptionally far-reaching and sudden in its
effects, can be considered as essentially the same in kind as any other
of the events which are continually causing change.

That there are difficulties in the matter of individuality no one
will deny. Consider the case of the amoeba which propagates by
simple fission. Is the parent cell identical with both or either of the
two daughter cells or not ? From one point of view it is clearly not
identical, yet Weisemann founded his doctrine of the potential
immortality of the cell on this phenomenon.

The phenomena of multiple personality are even more puzzling,
in particular those cases where two of the secondaries have been
fused into one by treatment. We might perhaps sidestep this diffi-
culty by holding that where two apparently separate secondary
personalities are thus fusible, the separateness is only illusory and
they are really different phases of the same personality. So far as
my recollection of the cases goes, successful fusion has always been
between secondaries which were more or less complementary to one

148] Mr Tyrrell’s Paper on Individuality 187

another : I doubt whether any attempt at fusion would be made by
the physician were this not so.

But I think that it may be said that these and other equally well-
established facts do, at the least, show that the ordinary common-
sense view of personality as an indivisible entity cannot be accepted.
What they do not show is the alternative which should be accepted
as correct ; hence all the array of different theories.

I have mentioned so far only the monistic and the dualist types,
there are, however, theories which postulate more than two different
kinds of element.

It seems to me that there is much to be said for a theory somewhat
on the lines of the old-fashioned orthodoxy of body, soul and spirit.
Such a theory is to be found in a highly elaborated form in the
Vedanta. There the Atman, or real spiritual self, is what I suppose
must be called supra-individual, it transcends all categories when
freed by eidightenment from the bonds of illusion. It is that which
gives unity to the individual when conjoined to and informing the
combination of the other factors, viz. body and life. The theory, as
presented in the Vedantic books is extremely complex and difficult
to understand, perhaps impossible for most Western minds, but the
general idea is clear and might form a basis for a less elaborate
hypothesis which would possibly be acceptable.

Myers speaks of a transcendental self and if one takes this to
belong to an order of nature totally different from the physical and
psychic factors we have the materials for a pluralistic hypothesis.
We should then have the physical body and the psychic factor,
whether in the form of a stratified consciousness or a hierarchy of
monads, forming a living organism ; this would be informed by the
transcendental self, which, though in its essential nature supra-
individual, would contribute to the whole that unity of which, I
imagine, we all have an inescapable conviction. The relation be-
tween the transcendental self and the living organism might be
thought of as an unilateral relation of coconsciousness, that is to say,
the transcendental self is coconscious to the fullest extent with the
monads or stratified muid, but they are not coconscious with it.

As a rough illustration of what I mean one could imagine an actor
who threw himself so thoroughly into his parts that while he was
actually acting he almost became for the time being the imaginary
personahty whom he was portraying. Suppose that it was Irving
playing Hamlet, then Hamlet-Irving would represent the “ me as I
know myself ” but would know nothing of the real Irving ; the real
Irving, however, would know all about Hamlet-Irving.

I refrain from elaborating this idea any further, but 1 imagine

188

Some Comments on Individuality [part 148]

that Mr Tyrrell must have had something of this sort in his mind
when he wrote, on page 11, “ It would seem that we must be wrong
in speaking of individuality in the plural and equally wro7ig in speak-
ing of it m the singular. Individuality would be something not
subject to the category of number”.

On such an hypothesis one could imagine that the relations be-
tween the monads or strata, whichever they may be, which consti-
tute the second factor, would be telepathic, as has been suggested
by Lord Balfour, and I suggest further that such telepathy would be
Interactional Telepathy. As regards the relations between the
transcendental self and the psychic factor I would suggest that these
also are of the nature of telepathy, but in this case they would be of
the kind which Professor Broad calls Intermental Confluence ; it
would, however, be non-reciprocal, a sort of one-way traffic.

This brings me to the last point in Mr Tyrrell’s paper on which I
beg leave to make some comment. On page 9 he speaks of “ sharing
an experience ” and “ direct prehension by two minds of the same
experience ” ; on page 10 he says “ it looks uncommonly like as if
there were a sharing of experience”.

May I venture to suggest that he has overlooked an important
consideration I Any experience whatsoever is not a simple, clear-
cut mental event with sharp edges and clearly defined bormdaries,
rather it is an inseparable part of an organic whole which, if forcibly
taken out of that whole, becomes something different. Every mental
event occurs against a background and is to some extent coloured
by that background. The background is made up of elements from
the entire past history of the individual experiencing the event.
Moreover, an event, to be in consciousness at all, must be recognised
as such and such however vague such recognition may be and this
recognition is determined largely by past experience.

I suggest therefore that every mental event contains within itself
elements derived from the whole past history of the individual. I
hate to use the word “ impossible”, it smacks too much of omni-
science, so I will content myself with saying that it is highly improb-
able that any two numerically distinct individuals should have
identical histories and, in consequence, exactly identical backgrounds
against which their experiences occur.

Of course all this is simply a restatement of the fundamental
principle of “ The Unique Ownership of Experience ” as laid down
by Professor Broad.

In view of these considerations I cannot see how two persons can
share an exactly identical experience and, if this be so, it seems
needless to discuss hypotheses based upon such a sharing.

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Society for Psychical Research

PART 149

THE QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF TRANCE
PERSONALITIES

By Whately Carington, M.xT., M.Sc.

Ill

Introductory'

General : Towards the end of my last paper on this sidjject [Q.S.T.P.,
II, Proc. S.P.R. Part 141) I briefly described a preliminary attempt
to investigate the autonomy of the two communicating controls
known as “ John ” and “ Etta This depended on obtaining re-
actions (times and reproductions) to word association tests given to
the ]3ersonalities concerned when manifesting through two different
mediums, iMrs Leonard and Mrs Sharplin. I attempted to eliminate
the effects due to the nrediums themselves by the method of partial
correlation ”, and I obtained positive results which indicated that
some extraneous cause was at work other than any similarity which
might exist between the mediums themselves.

Fortunately, I guarded myself fairly thoroughly against possible
imperfections of the method used, for Professor Fisher has kindly
pointed out that it is not to l)e relied upon in the context. The
reason, as I understand it, is broadly speaking this : that wherever
the eliminated variables (in tliis case the data obtained from the
two mediums in their normal states) are themselves lial)le to error,
the resultant partial correlation coefficients are always likely to be
too large ; precise results are obtainable only when the values of
the eliminated variables are known -with exactitude {e.g. dates).
The figures in question must accordingly be discarded, but the work

189

190

Whately Caringfon, 21. A., 21. Sc.

[rART

has at any rate served a nsefiil purpose in encouraging the experi-
ment discussed below which has led to extremely promising results.

The main material used consists of the data obtained by Mr
Drayton Thomas in five special sittings with Mrs Leonard and five
with Mrs Sharplin held on various dates in Sej^teniber, October and
November 1935. I have also, as will be seen, made certain com-
jrarisons of importance between this material and that obtained from
Mrs Leonard and Feda, and from John and Etta, in 1933 and from
the two first in the Irving experiment of 1934.

The list of words used in the Leonard-Sharplin tests was the same
as that for the last-mentioned experiment ; that is to say, it was
derived from the words of the original (1933) list by substituting for
each a word more or less closely associated with it. (Cf. Q.S.T.P.,
II, p. 349.)

It may be said at once that, to superficial inspection, the Sharplin
data were singularly unpromising. Mr Drayton Thomas, from a
study of the responses, reported to the effect that he could find
nothing at all suggestive of either John or Etta, while I myself, after
a preliminary examination of the figures, regarded a negative out-
come as a foregone conclusion to be worked out and recorded only
for the sake of formal completeness. That results so well-marked
as those actually obtained should ultimately have emerged consti-
tutes a remarkable testimonial, so to speak, to the jmwer and sensi-
tivity of the method ultimately employed, for which I am more
indebted than I can easily express to Mr W. L. Stevens of the Galton
Laboratory. I must also record here my gratitude to Mr L. H. C.
Tippett (Author of The 21ethods of Statistics) for timely help at a
critical moment.

I do not propose to overburden this 2)aper (which in any event is
bound to be almost unreadable) by describing in detail how, desjjite
prolonged residence abroad, I maintained the old English charac-
teristic (according to my Continental friends) and “ tried all the
wrong ways first ” ; but I think the final stages will be more com-
])rehensible if I first deal with certain “ routine ” evaluations and
comparisons. This will at least show the liopelessness of applying
ordinary methods to the main ^Ji'oblem involved ; moreover some
of the results are of very considerable intrinsic interest, and ajjpear
to illuminate to an aj^jmeciable if incomjfiete extent the nature of the
2)sychological mechanisms with which we are dealing.

Notation, abbreviations, etc. : In what follows, ET stands for
Eeaction Time(s), RPN for Reproduction(s), or for tests on these

149] The Quantitative Study of Trance Personalities 191

observables. L stands for Mrs Leonard and S for Mrs Sharplin in
tbeir normal states ( I have not concerned myself further with the
“ prepared ” state of Mrs Leonard). F is Feda and S' is “ Silver ”,
Mrs Sharplin’s corresponding control. J and E stand for John and
Etta as purporting to manifest through Mrs Leonard ; J' and E'
the same through Mrs Sharphn. Towards the end, notably in Table
V, I use the contractions 33-35' to indicate the comparison of the
J and E (Leonard) data of 1933 with the J' and E' data (Sharplin)
of 1935, and like contractions mutatis mutandis.

X stands for any quantity of the kind we happen to be considering
at the moment.

X is the mean (average value) of all quantities like x.

S(a:) is the sum of all such quantities.

S (x^) is the sum of the squares of all such quantities.

~ has the usual significance of “ approximately ” or “ difference
between ” according to context.

> is “ greater than ” ; < is “ less than

RN is Resiilt Number(s).

The results are numbered in much the same way as those of
Q.S.T.P., II, but the first is 3001, the initial 3 corresponding to the
number (III) of this paper ; the results of Q.S.T.P., II, may be
thought of as numbered from 2001 to 2203, and those of the next
will begin with 4001. The same system of decimalisation of results
in the same fine of a Table, or otherwise closely related, is adopted
as before {Q.S.T.P., II, p. 323).

Past I

Preliminary Survey op Material
A. Individual Consistencies
3

In Table I are given the values of the various Individual Con-
Bistencies (previously called “ Individuahties ”) shown by the
personahties examined.

I have introduced what I think is an improvement here by giving,
in addition to the values of z, quantities which may be regarded as
percentage consistencies. The z’s are mathematically indispensable,
but they are not very informative to the untutored eye, whereas a
percentage conveys something to almost everyone.

Any given z can be transformed into a correlation coefficient, in

M 2

Whately Carington, M.A., M.Sc.

192

[part

cases where we are comparing two different personalities, by the
relationship

r=(e2~'-l)/(e2^+l),

and this is easily shown to be precisely equivalent, in such cases, to

r=(W-WP)/(W + WP),

in the notation of Q.S.T.P., I, Appendix II, the letters standing for
the mean squares of the quantities concerned. Mutatis mutandis,
I here take

r=(W-OW)/(W+OW),

and, in each case, the percentage similarity or consistency as lOOr.

This gives results which are both intelligible and in accordance
with common sense ; for, if there were no similarity or consistency,
the percentage thus obtained would be zero, while if it were perfect
the percentage would be 100.

The most striking feature of the Table is the high consistency of
the controls, Feda and Silver, as compared with their mediums.
This is observable in every case with the Leonard-Sharplin material,
though it is untrue in three cases out of four for the results of the
earlier experiments, which I have given on the right of the Table
for purposes of comparison. I do not quite understand this dis-

crepancy

, but there

seems no doubt as to the

genuineness

of the

effect in

the present

case ; for we

have, taking RT and RPJM to-

gether :

Means

Differences

S.E.

L-

- -20995

F-

- -34875

F-L -13830

•1005

•17

.3089-1

S -

- -16970

- -48675

S'-S -31705

•1005

<•005

.3089-2

while combining the figures for mediums and controls gives :
Mediums -18980

Controls -41775 C-M -22795 -07106 <-005 3089-3

Taking the First Thomas and Irving Experiments (RT & RPN)
together gives :

L- - -28912

F - - -33095 F-L -04183 -0543i 44 3089-4

which is altogether negligible, while for the difference between the
Medium-control differences, we have

•22795- -04183 -18612 -08832 -04.... 3089-5

149] The Quantitative Study of Trance Personalities 193

so that while we can hardly dismiss the discrepancy as fortuitous it
may fairly be regarded as due to some masking cause in the earlier
experiments and not to any essential change in the character of the
personahtiesd

I infer that, over the comparatively short periods of a few weeks
each, which cover the durations of the experiments concerned,
controls, or at any rate these controls, are significantly more con-
sistent than their mediums. This implies the not-unimportant con-
clusion that they are derived from, or based upon, much more stable
strata of the total personality or “ psyche ” than those which deter-
mine the reactions of the normal consciousness. We shall find
further confirmation of this, in the case of L and F, when we come
to consider the Intra-group comparisons.

The communicators in the Leonard-Sharphn Experiment come
between the mediums and controls, the comparable figures being

J & E - -21870 ; J' & E' - -25435
while for the First Thomas Experiment the comparable figure is
J & E - - - - -9490

which is less than the value for either L or F. There is accordingly
here a suggestion that, in this respect, communicators resemble
normal mediums more than they do controls ; but the difference is
easily shown to be insignificant (though it may, of course, be real
despite this), while the Irving communicator “ Dora ” (D) is, faintly,
anomalous. Poohng all data and taking means all round, we have

Mediums -2295. Communicators -2667. Controls -3743.

The communicators (which here include D) clearly favour the
normal mediums, though only to a shght extent ; the fact may,
perhaps, be taken to suggest that communicators are more like
normal people than they are like secondary personahties, such as
I consider Feda and Silver to be. But it would be unwise to attach
appreciable weight to this.

Apart from the rather poor showing of Leonard on RPN and
Sharplin on RT, there is nothing more here that is worth noting,
unless it be that Silver’s figure of 52-7 per cent, for RT is the highest
consistency yet recorded.

^ In the above S.E. is the Standard Error of the difference concerned. We
may also here conveniently note the following errata in Q.S.T.P., II, Table II :
In RN 42, for -2378 read -2738 ; in RN 43, for -4642 read -4588.

194

Whately Carington, M.A., M.Sc.

[part

B. Intra-Group Comparisons

The relationships of similarity and difference between the person-
alities forming the Leonard and Sharphn groups, within those
groups, are shown in Table II. I have added the figures for percen-
tage similarities, obtained by the method already indicated, but I
have not thought it worth while to work the covariances, such as
were given in Q.S.T.P., II. These are laborious to evaluate and, as
a rule, of very little interest. At the foot of the Table I have added
a number of percentage similarities from earlier experiments for
purposes of comparison. The symbols, etc., have their usual mean-
ings, but I have halved the probabilities for similarity, as indicated
(P/2), so as to show the chance of a value of the observed magnitude
and in the observed sense (similar or countersimilar) being obtained
accidentally. . .

I have restricted the work to the more evidently important types
of comparison. We are naturally interested in the relationships of
controls and communicators to theic mediums and of the communi-
cators to each other ; but the relationships between controls and
communicators seem of little importance at the present time, and
nothing is to be gained by overburdening the work with irrelevant
figures merely for the sake of achieving a formal completeness.

The first point to be noted is that, on RT, Feda is again counter-
similar to her medium; thus clinching if need be, the point made in
Q.S.T.P., II, regarding her status as a secondary personality.

Silver, it will be noted, is not countersimilar to normal Sharphn,
but his similarity is so altogether trifling, that it seems more reason-
able to ascribe it to chance errors than to maintain that he is of a
different psychological type from Feda and to create a new category
for him.

Actually, Feda is slightly similar, in this case, to J and E (the
figures are not given in the Table) ; so that, taking all known com-
parisons within the Leonard manifold into account, including those
with “ prepared ” Leonard and those of the Second Thomas Experi-
ment, we have :

-1- ve

- ve

Total

Feda Comparisons -

- 4

Other „

- 13

Total -

- 17

195

149] The Quantitative Study of Trance Per socialities

which gives, using “ Yate’s adjustment ” for small numbers,

^2 — 0.93_ P less than -01 3090

as the chance of the effect being accidental.

We may next consider the LL and FF comparisons (RN 3017 & 8,
3027 & 8). These are between the normal Leonard and Feda data
respectively for this (Leonard-Sharphn experiment), and the Irving
Experiment of 1934, in which, as already stated, the same hst of
words was used.

Note first the negligible similarity and highly significant difference
between the two sets of L reaction times, and contrast with these
the very high similarity and neghgible difference of the correspond-
ing figures for F. Just as Feda was much more consistent than
Leonard over the short period covering this experiment, so she
shows herself enormously more stable over the (approximately) nine
months interval separating the two experiments. The difference is
significant, for we have :

Difference in z’s = -3822. S.E. = -14213. P = -01 3091

Perverting the poet, we might almost say of Feda “ Time can-
not wither, nor custom stale, her infinite consistency ”. She is
evidently derived from strata far less susceptible to the influence
of current events than those which we recognise as “ normal
Leonard ”.

The effect is not nearly so marked in the case of RPN. This is in
accordance with the view, which I have always maintained, that
the reproduction test penetrates to deeper levels than does that for
reaction times. It thus strikes more permanent elements in Leonard
than RT does ; but this circumstance is irrelevant in the case of
Feda, because, when she is tested, whether on RPN or RT, the deep
layers from which she is derived are already uppermost, so that the
superior penetration of RPN has no scope.

Connected also with the foregoing is, presmnably, the markedly
greater differences which the controls F & S' show from their
mediums, in respect of RT, compared with those shown, on the
whole, ,by communicators. The latter are somewhat “ freer ”, as
judged by this criterion of difference, at the RPN than at the RT

196 Whately Carington, M.A., M.Sc. [part

level, while the reverse is significantly the case with the controls.
Mean figures are :

RT RPN Diffce.
Communicators and Mediums - -0709 -1441 - -0732

Controls and Mediums - - -3544 -IIH -2430

Difference . . - . -2835 -0327 -3162

The differences - -0732 and -0327 are evidently insignificant ; for
the significance of the others, we have :

•2430 has S.E. -09675 ; whence P/2 is —01 3092-1.

•2835 „ „ -0684 „ „ < 10’^ 3092-2.

•3162 „ „ -1185 „ „ <-005 3092-3.

We conclude that the controls really are freer on the RT level
than are communicators, or than they themselves are at the RPN
level. The reverse is the case with communicators, but I doubt
whether we are entitled to take the significance of the value -3162
as assurance that this reversal is real. There is, however, a pretty
strong suggestion to the effect that at the deeper level reached by
RPN controls converge while communicators diverge with respect to
their medium, the former becoming more and the latter less hke her.

So far as it goes, this affords fairly strong evidence of the autonomy
of commumcators and the fundamental unity with the medium of
controls ; but the figures are not coercive, while the Irving experi-
ment is definitely anomalous. Pending confirmation, or an ex-
planation of the anomaly, the indication must not be taken too
seriously.

When we turn to the relations between communicators and
mediums from the more ordinary point of view, we find that,
whereas (on RT) J & E are sharply differentiated from L, J' & E'
are quite indistinguishable from S. Mrs Sharplin’s “ controlled ”
state (Silver) is particularly well defined, but it is clear that when,
so to say, she abandons this for the “ communicator ” condition she
reverts, at the RT level at any rate, to her normal condition, which
is but little affected by J' and E'. The value of -4314 for S and E'
is, indeed, the highest reaction time similarity ever recorded.

Leonard shows the same tendency, though to a much less extent,
for we have, taking the means for this and the First Thomas experi-
ment together :

Similarity Difference

LF - - - - -11795 -3150

LJ & LE - - -0962 -1383

149] The Quantitative Study of Trance Personalities

197

According to the point of view we ultimately adopt, we may
attribute the difference between Leonard and Sharplin here either
to the lack of practice which the communicators have had with the
latter medium, or to the short time that has been available for
building up the “ histrionic poses ” of the alternative hypothesis.

Leonard has shown an appreciable, though barely significant, im-
provement in this respect, since the first experiment ; for we have,
for the LJ and LE means :

Similarity Difference

First Experiment - -1937 -0297

This „ - --0013 -2469

Difference - - -1950 -2172

The differences have standard errors -1086 and -0875 respectively ;
so that, for their significances, we have :

For similarity : P = -07 3093-1

For difference P = -02 3093-2

while if we take the two together, which is probably legitimate, we
find

Mean of differences = -2061. S.E. of mean = -0697. P<-01 ...3093-3

Points such as these are, however, of comparatively minor interest
at the present stage of our investigation, though they may perhaps
be useful straws to indicate the direction of the wind.

C. Inter-Group Comparisons
10

Much more interesting and of potentially greater importance for
our present investigation are the inter-group comparisons given in
Table III. I have again confined myself to the more obviously
interesting comparisons, for I see httle to be gained at present by
comparing, say, J with S' or E' with F. I have, however, included
the “ cross-comparisons ” JE' and EJ', because of the known close
similarity, from Q.S.T.P., II and Table II of this paper, between
J & E and J' & E'. If these are autonomous entities and very like
each other, we might reasonably expect the cross-comparison as
well as the direct similarities to be high. As before, I give percen-
tages for similarity and halve the probabilities, “ for sense ”, in the
case of this quantity.

198

Whately Carington, M.A., M.Sc.

[part

Probably tbe most striking feature of the Table is the extra-
ordinary resemblance between Feda and Silver in respect of RT.
This is repeated, though to a much less extent, by the reproductions
also, and is only rendered the more remarkable by the significant
differences also found in each case. Leonard and Sharphn them-
selves show no kind of resemblance to each other — they are, indeed,
insignificantly countersimilar — as regards RT, where their difference
is highly significant ; while their similarity and difference are alike
negligible in the case of RPN.

It is tempting to rush to the conclusion that there is a specific
“ control state ” common to all mediums ; but this, I think, would
be a far too hasty generalisation. More probably it is only some
more or less coincidental likeness of character and experience that
has caused L and S to sj^lit off such highly similar secondaries. None
the less, so striking a resemblance between a yoimg Hindu girl and
an erstwhile American brave (as they are alleged to be) is, to my
mind, quite incredible ; the similarity in question accordingly
greatly weakens, in my opinion, whatever claims either might have
to be accepted at his or her face value.

I may say here that among the data collected by Mr Drayton
Thomas from Mrs Sharplin were three sets of reactions from a
personality purporting to be Feda manifesting through her, as well
as a number of observations on “ Jinnie ” who is a kind of secondary
control. I have not yet made any study of these data, thinking it
better to concentrate on John and Etta for the time being ; but I
hope to examine them in due course, when I attempt a more thorough
study of controls generally than I have yet been able to undertake.

It will be noticed that, on RT, the communicators “ follow their
mediums ” in the sense that both JJ' and EE' similarities are
feebly negative, like LS ; but I doubt whether any weight should
be attached to this circumstance which is probably quite accidental.
The cross-similarities are about equally feeble in a positive sense.
It is evident that little support for the hypothesis that J and E are
autonomous is to be expected from a study of RT ; these data, at
any rate, give none at all.

On RPN, on the other hand, the position is somewhat more pro-
mising, for JJ' & EE' similarities are both appreciably higher than
that for LS. The Difference, however, is not significant, for taking
means, we have

149]

The Quantitative Study of Trance Personalities

199

Mediums

Mean

- -11.52

Communicators -

- -2848

Difference -

- -1696

S.E. -

- -1231

whence Diff./S.E. is 1-378 and P/2 is -085 3094-1

Even if we count in the cross-comparisons, we have

Mean

Mediums ----- -1152
Communicators - - - - -26825

Difference 15305

S.E. ------ -1123

whence Diff./S.E. is 1-363 and P/2 is -09 3094-2

I give these values, which are of no intrinsic significance, mainly
for the sake of emphasising that, even if they were highly significant,
we should not be entitled to draw any positive conclusions from
them regarding the autonomy of John and Etta. We have just
received an unmistakeable warning, in the shape of the remarkable
resemblance between Feda and Silver, to the effect that, however
different two mediums may be in their normal state they are quite
capable of achieving a striking similarity when in trance. Thus,
broadly speaking, no “ straight ” resemblance between J & J' or
E & E', however strong and however much greater than that be-
tween L & S would justify us in doing more than conclude that there
is a stronger likeness between the “ communicator ” states of the
two medimns than between those we know as normal.

Still, we may reasonably conclude, despite the foregoing and the
feebleness of the indications, that if there is any good evidence for
the autonomy of John and Etta to be found anywhere we are more
likely to find it among reproductions than among reaction times.

D. Inter-List Comparisons

It wiU be remembered that in the course of Q.S.T.P, II {q.v. p. 350)
I compared the reactions given by the same personalities (N, P, & F)
in response to the two different fists of words used in the First
Thomas and Irving experiments. That is to say, I compared the
reactions given by normal Leonard when tested with List A with
those given by her when tested with List B, and similarly for pre-
pared Leonard and Feda.

200

WJiately Caringkm, M.A., M.Sc.

[part

As already explained, the words of List B were derived from those
of List A by substituting for each a word more or less obviously
associated with it, and I rather expected that there would be some
reasonable degree of similarity shown when the reactions to the two
lists by the same personality were compared. In this I was, in the
first instance, disappointed ; but I have since made a considerable
number of comparisons of this kind, of which the more important
are given in Table IV. I should perhaps explain that in recom-
puting the results of the original comparisons I have incorporated
corrections for practice and fatigue, which I had previously ignored
and, in the case of Feda, I have rejected the reproductions of the
first sitting in which, evidently, she did not reahse what was reqmred
of her, and gave only one correct reproduction in seventy-five ; this
last accounts for the considerable difference between RN 3051
and 2134.

As was perhaps to be expected, most of the similarities found are
somewhat slight, particularly as regards RT. Here, indeed, the only
really striking result is RN 3058, which shows Feda as again signi-
ficantly similar to Silver, despite the change, so to say, of fist. It is
distinctly curious that she should be, as it were, more faithful to
him than to herself (3052) though this is reversed for RPN. Some-
thing odd is evidently involved here, though frankly I do not under-
stand just what it is.

It is perhaps just worth noticing in passing that the RT values
for JJ' and EE' (3055 & 6) are both positive and, as such, better than
the straight intra-list values (3039, 3040) of Table III ; but the
figures are too small to be significant.

On RPN they are negligibly inferior to the straight comparisons
(3045 & 6) ; EE' is significant as it stands and JJ' not far off it ;
while if we take the mean, we have

Mean=-2389. S.E. = -0822. P/2 = -0017 3095

which is very definitely significant. It is tempting to find here a
further and stronger indication of autonomy, for it is difficult at first
sight to understand just how likeness between the two mediums can
produce the effect when two different fist of words are involved.
But the general considerations of section 11 above still hold and it
may well be that by forcing the comparison to a deeper level, as the
use of inter-fist data imdoubtedly does, we have merely shifted to
a region where the mediums are more alike than they are super-
ficially.

149] The Quantitative Study of Trance Personalities 201

The fact remains, however, that comparison of J' & E' with their
prototypes of the 1933 hst gives results just about as good, on the
whole, as comparison with the Leonard versions tested with the
1935 hst. It was this discovery that led me to use the 1933 material
in the analysis of Part II of this paper, with results, as will be seen,
of considerable interest.

The whole question of interpreting these intricate and somewhat
varying results is, I find, extremely difficult ; yet I am confident
that they contain important clues to the proper understanding of
the psychology of trance mediumship, particularly as regards the
status and nature of controls.

I have said above that the use of inter- hst data “ forces the com-
parison to a deeper level ” and it is possible that some amplification
of this remark may help us to envisage more clearly the kind of
problem with which we are concerned.

I am speaking, of course, of what I may call “ associated ” hsts,
such as these, in which each word of the one is hnked with the corre-
sponding word of the other by some not too remote association.
Thus the first word “ Head ” of the 1933 hst is evidently connected
with the first word “ Hair ” of the 1935 hst ; the second words
“ Green ” and “ Grey ” respectively are both colours (colloquially
speaking at any rate), and have the additional hnk of both beginning
with Gr . . . . The last mentioned element might tend to produce
some hkeness of response on the most superficial level without the
meanings of the words being at all apprehended by the subject ; but
in general this is not the case, so that likeness of reaction will only
be brought about the evocation of associated memories, concepts or
what-not common to the two words. It is in this sense that I use
the term “ deeper level ” in this context ; but there seems no a
'priori reason for supposing that it is “ deeper ” in the same kind of
way as the level at which RPN operates is “ deeper ” than that
reached by RT. In fact, it fairly evidently is not ; otherwise, I
think, we should find Feda inter-list RT similarities (3051 & 2) of
the same high order as those for RPN (3061 & 2) ; and, again, if the
two “ deepnesses ” were of the same kind, we should expect F to
be significantly similar to S' on inter-fist RPN (3068) if she is so on
RT (3058). And why in the name of all that’s perplexing should
she be significantly similar to S' on inter-fist RT, but not to herself ?

I can only propound the conundrum and hope that some more
penetrating psychologist than myself will produce the answer.

202

Whately Carington, M.A., M.Sc.

[part

Part II

Elimination of Effects due to Mediums
from J, J' and E, E' Data

A. Explanation of Method
16

I have already pointed out that no “ straight ” comparison of the
data obtained from the communicators purporting to manifest
through two different mediums can possibly lead to valid conclusions
regarding their autonomy, because any likeness found can always be
attributed to likeness of the relevant trance states as such. I must
now add that it is equally hopeless to attempt to overcome this
difficulty (as I did in Part VI of Q.S.T.P., II) by introducing data
obtained from the normal mediums into the calculations, for the
“ communicator ” state of trance may be very different from the
normal, just as the “ control ” state has been shown to be above.

We must accordingly work only with the data obtained from the
ostensible communicators and devise means for eliminating any
effects of likeness, howsoever arising, due to the trance states in or
through which they are functioning.

The right way of doing this (for which, as aheady stated, I am
deeply indebted to Mr W. L. Stevens of the Galton Laboratory) is
not particularly easy to understand, but I will do my best to make
it clear with the aid of simple illustrations, and I think the best plan
will be to build up a set of imaginary readings for, say, a group of
five words and then analyse these. The process, if not completely
illuminating, should serve to show the kind of way in which the
method operates.

By way of preliminary, we must note the following points. If we
are presented with a set of, say, reaction times from the Leonard-
Sharp hn experiment of 1935, we find that it consists of 400 entries,
namely 100 from the Leonard version of John (J), 100 from the
Leonard version of Etta (E), 100 from the Sharphn version of John
(J') and 100 from the Sharplin version of Etta (E'). To each of
these entries three factors (apart from fortuitous error) have contri-
buted and to the operation of these three factors, plus error, all
differences between them are due.

The first factor is the Medium, hereinafter denoted by M. By
this is meant, of course, the medium in the relevant trance state —

203

149] The Quantitative Study of Trance Personalities

not the medium in the “ normal ” state or in that produced by
hashish or a new hat. Thus the commimicator state as such, and
regardless of which communicator is functioning, might be respon-
sible for a generally longer reaction time on the part of Leonard than
on the part of Sharphn, or vice versa, and this fact would contribute
to the variabihty of the data taken as a whole.

The second factor is the Communicator, hereinafter denoted by
C. This may refer either (on the spiritistic hypothesis) to an actual
extraneous entity with attributes of its own exerting an influence
on the average length of reaction time, just as M does, or (on the
purely psychological) to the “ rendering ” by the medium of the
character of John or Etta as the case may be. It makes no difference
to the analysis ; on either hypothesis, C may make just the same
kind of contribution to the total variabihty of the data as M.

The third factor, of course, is the Word, hereinafter denoted by W.
The different words of the hst will, in general, produce differing
effects which may be common to the two mediums as such, to the
two communicators as such, or to all four personahties.

The last remark, which may perhaps sound a trifle obscure, leads
to the consideration that we must not in our analysis deal with these
three main factors alone, but also with what is usually termed their
“ interaction ” with each other. Thus the contribution of C to the
total variability of the data may differ as between the two mediums
— or, if you prefer it (since there is nothing mathematically speaking
to distinguish between the data from mediums and communicators)
the contribution of M may vary as between the two communicators.
We will denote this interaction by MC, and will similarly use the
letters MW and CW to refer respectively to the contributions made
to the total variability of the data by the variation of the mediums
as such, taken together, with respect to the words, and to the corre-
sponding variation of the communicators as such, taken together.

Thus the total variability of the data is made up six definite (and
calculable) contributions, viz. M, C, W, MC, MW, CW, together with
an indefinite amount of error. Our business is to And how much of
the total observed variabihty can be ascribed to each of these six
components and to see whether those that interest us (in this case
only CW) are significantly greater than the residuum (error). This
will, I hope, become clearer when we have constructed a set of
imaginary data ab initio.

We will try the effect of building up a set of imaginary reaction
times for the four personahties J, E, J' and E' for five words, a, b, c,
d and e, using arbitrary units.

204

Whately Carington, M.A., M.Sc.

[part

We will start by supposing that one of the mediums (L, say) has a
“ basic rate ” of reaction time of, say, one unit, while the other
has a basic rate of 2. Then our first schedule of contributions to the
final times will be :

WOBD J E

o 1 1

h 1 1

c 1 1

d 1 1

e 1 1

J' E' Total

2 2 6

Total 5 5

10 10 30

Now the “ total variability ”, otherwise known as the Variance,
is simply the sum of the squares of the differences of the quantities
concerned from their mean. Here we have 20 entries with sum 30 and
mean T5 ; since 10 of them are 1 and the other 10 are 2, it is easy
to see that the total variabihty, or variance, will be 20 x -5^, or 5-0.

The rule for finding the contribution made to the total variance
from any source may be stated as follows : Take the sum of the
squares of the totals of the entries contributed by the two or more
factors concerned ; divide this sum of squares by the number of
entries which go to make up each total thus squared ; subtract the
product of the Grand Total and the General Mean ; the remainder
is the contribution required. I cannot give here the theoretical proof
of this rule ; but those who are acquainted with statistical methods
will probably recognise an old friend, even if somewhat disguised.

Now at this stage we have only one source of variation involved,
namely M — alias the differing “ basic rate ”, as we have called it,
of the two mediums. Leonard, we have supposed, has contributed
the 10 entries under J & E, which have a total of 10 ; Sharphn the
10 entries under J' and E' with a total of 20. The sum of the squares
of these totals is 100 + 400 = 500 ; each of the totals which has been
squared is made up of 10 entries, and dividing by this number gives
50 ; the grand total is 30 and the general mean is 1-5 with a product
of 45 ; subtracting this from 50, leaves 5-0. This, as we have just
seen, is the total variance ; so that at this stage the total variabihty
is found to be composed exclusively — as it should be, because we
have arranged it so — of the variations due to the difference in the
“ basic rates ” of the mediums — that is to say, to M.

Now let us suppose that “ John ” — whether because he is an
autonomous extraneous entity so constituted, or because the

149] The Quantitative Study of Trance Personalities

205

“ renderings ” of his character given by the two mediums agree in
this respect — has similarly a “ basic rate ” of 2 and “ Etta ”, subject
to the same remarks, of 3. Adding these to what we have for the

medimns, our

schedule becomes :

Word

Total

Total 15

We may as well find the variance now by the regular method
instead of by inspection ; we have, where x refers to any entry,
S(a:)-80; S(a;2) = 330; x = 4-0; *S(ic)=:320; S(a:-f)2= 10-0 ;
the last-named quantity (10-0) being the variance, obtained by
subtracting x S(a:) from S(a;2).

[N.B. S(a:) is the Grand Total and x the General Mean.)

Applying the same procedure as before for determining M, we have

Sum of all Leonard entries 35-0 ; sum squared - 1, 225-0

,, ,, Sharplin „ 45-0 ; ,, ,, - 2,025-1

Total 3,250-0

Dividing by 10 as before gives . . - . 325-0

Subtract a;S (x) 320-0

Remains ----- 5.9

It will be noticed that the contribution of M is unaffected by what
we have done.

Applying exactly the same procedure to determining C, we have :

Sum of all John entries 35-0 ; sum squared - - 1,225-0

„ „ Etta „ 45-0; „ „ - - 2,025-0

Total 3,250-0

Dividing by 10 gives ------ 325-0

Subtract 320-0

Remains 5-0

which is 'the contribution made by the difference between com-
municators.

Thus the total variance at this stage, namely 10-0, is completely
accounted for (as it should be) by the two contributions M & C. As

206

Whately Carington, M.A., M.Sc.

[part

it happens, the simple figures chosen make the two contributions
equal ; but there is no reason, in general, why they should be so,
and they are equally well dealt with by the same process whether
they are or not.

We will not trouble to introduce an element of “ interaction ”
between mediums and coimnunicators, and I fear I am not clever
enough to build up a complete set of life-like data without at
one stage or another upsetting the arrangements I have, so to
speak, already made. It will be sufficient, I hope, to construct a
reasonably plausible set and then to show how it is in practice
analysed.

Let us suppose that the words a, b, c, d, e are such that they re-
spectively produce increments of time 7, 3, 1, 5 and 4 units, /or all
personalities ; then to the existing figures in each colunm of our
schedule we shall add 7, 3, 5, 1, 4 in that order from top to bottom.
On the assumption that John and Etta really are extraneous entities
of some kind, let the words further be such that they produce
respectively increments of 3, 1, 0, 2, 1 in the case of both versions
of John, and of 1, 4, 1, 5, 2 in the case of both versions of Etta.
Finally let the mediums have their own idiosyncrasies such that the
words give, similarly, increments of 6, 1, 3, 1, 1 in both tests of
Leonard, and of 1, 4, 4, 2, 6 in both tests of Sharplin.

We have now catered for all possibilities — namely, for variations
in the average times of mediums and communicators over all words
(by the “ basic rates ” dealt with in the previous sections) ; for
differences between the words common to all personahties — i.e.,
effects common to both mediums — for those affecting each com-
municator individually ; and for those affecting each medium indi-
vidually. We will refer to these last three quantities involving the
words as W, CW, and MW respectively ; but it is only CW that
really interests us. If there is “ nothing there ” the two versions of
each communicator can have nothing in common except what
chance will give, and the value of CW will not significantly exceed
error ; but if there really are communicators behind the scenes, then
their personal variation with respect to words will tend to leave a
significant value for CW, after we have allowed for any seeming
similarity due to variations of the mediums individually or varia-
tions common to all personalities.

Reverting, we need not trouble to put down in detail just how the
data for each personality are built up, but will content ourselves
with the single example of J (the Leonard version of John).

149] The Quantitative Study of Trance Personalities

207

These data will now be made up as follows :

Word B W J

a 3 7 3

& 3 3 1

c 3 1 0

d 3 5 2

e 3 4 1

Total

The attentive reader will doubtless recognise the figures under B
as the “ basic rates ” already discussed ; those under W as the con-
tributions from the words common to all personalities ; and those
under J and L as the increments postulated as characteristic of John
and Leonard respectively.

Repeating this process with the other three personahties, we
obtain as our final set of data for analysis :

Word

Total

258

It should be borne in mind that, in composing this set of data,
we have assumed that there is no error {i.e., we have not introduced
any casual irregularities but only quantities having a definite raison
d’etre. Thus, when we have removed all the variability (variance)
due to M, C, W, MC, MW and CW, we ought to find nothing left.

We start by determining the total variance to be analysed. The
Grand Total is 258, the General Mean 258/20=12-9, and their
product 3328-2.

The sum of squares of all 20 entries is 3566 ; subtracting the
above product leaves 237-8 ; this is the variance.

The contribution made by the mediums, conmiunicators and
their interaction (M, C and MC) is deterimned as follows. First we
square and sum the four personality (column) totals, obtaining the
figure 16,862 ; but since each item squared contains five entries, we
must divide by five (obtaining 3,372-4) before subtracting the
product (3,328-2) which leaves 44-2. This quantity, however, con-
tains aU the variance that can be due to mediums, communicators
and their interaction ; so that to obtain MC we must calculate M
and C separately and subtract from 44-2. Repeating the ritual

208 Whately Carington, M.A., M.Sc. [part

already exemplified in previous sections we obtain the values of
24-2 for M amd 20-0 for C. We then have :

M 24-2

C 20-0

MC 0

Total - - - 44-2

We find to our surprise that there is no interaction between M and C,
but soon reahse that this is because we omitted to introduce any.

To find the contribution made by the differences between Words
as such, i.e., the differences common to all personalities, we square
and sum the Word (row) totals, obtaining 13,796. We divide this
by four, because each total squared contains four items before sub-
tracting the product from the quotient (3,449). The remainder
amounts to 120-8 and is W.

For the contribution made by the differences between the words as
shown by the mediums we take, say, Leonard first, add the two
entries for J and E in the case of each word (obtaining 37, 20, 16,
etc.), square and sum these totals, obtaining 3,101, and repeat the
process for Sharplin, which yields 3,949. We add these to get the
total effect, divide by two, because each item squared was made up
of two entries, and subtract the product. This leaves 196-8, which is
the total contribution to the variance made by the mediums, the
words and their interaction. To obtain MW we must subtract M
and W from this and we accordingly have :

M - 24-2

W 120-8

MW 51-8

Total - - - 196-8

In the case of CW, we proceed precisely similarly, except that
instead of adding and squaring the pairs of entries belonging to the
same medium, we add and square the pairs belonging to the same
communicator. The sums are 2,964 and 4,016 for John and Etta
respectively ; adding these, dividing by two and subtracting the
product, we have the figure 161 -8 which, analogously to the case of
the mediums and words, contains the contributions made by C and
W as well as CW. So in this case we have :

C 20-0

W 120-8

CW 21-0

Total - - - 161-8

209

149] The Quantitative Study of Trance Personalities
We may now tabulate the contributions as follows :

M -

- 24-2

C -

- 20-0

W -

- 120-8

MC -

_ _ _

0-0

MW-

- 51-8

CW -

- 21-0

MCW

0-0

Total -

- 237 8

It will be seen that the total variance is precisely made up, as it
should be, by the contributions thus determined, so that nothing is
left for MOW, which would be error for our purpose.

In practice, of course, this is far from being the case, and the
question arises as to whether the quantity CW is significantly
greater than the residual MOW. If it is not, then the effect is attri-
butable to chance ; if it is, then the operation of some extraneous
factor not ascribable to the likeness between the relevant trance states of
the mediums, or to chance, may be regarded as estabhshed. We have
extracted and set in its proper place, as W, the effect due to whatever
the words have in common for all personahties ; and we have done
the same (MW) for whatever is common to the two (presumably
closely similar but not necessarily identical) states of each of the
two mediums ; if there are no communicators, then chance alone
can give us whatever we find for CW, and it is only a matter of
routine statistical technique to ascertain the probability of this
having occurred.

The way this is done is by means of the ordinary “ z test ”, which
I have already explained to some extent in Q.S.T.P., I, Appendix II,
p. 214. We obtain the mean squares of CW and MCW by dividing
each by the appropriate number of degrees of freedom and take z
as half the difference of the natural logarithms of these quotients.
Dividing this 2 by its standard error and consulting a table of normal
deviates gives us the probability required.

This needs a good deal more amplification than I can give here.
It must be sufficient to say that the number of degrees of freedom
associated with any of the elementary factors M, C and W is one less
than the number of entities, so to speak, classified under the heading
in question. Thus, in the example just worked, we have two
mediums and two communicators, so that M and C have only one

210

Whately Carington, M.A., M.Sc.

[part

degree of freedom eacli ; but we have five words, so tliat W has four
degrees. For “ compounds ” such as MW and CW the number of
degrees is the continued product of the numbers for the constituents ;
thus MC would have 1x1 = 1 degree, CW has 1x4=4, and MOW
has 1 X 1 X 4 = 4 degrees. So long, in fact, as we are deahng only
with two mediums and two communicators the number of degrees
for CW and for MCW will always be equal. This saves a certain
amount of trouble in practice, for we do not need to work out mean
squares but merely divide CW by MCW (or vice versa, if MCW
happens to be the greater) and find the logarithm of this quotient.
In practice also it reduces the likelihood of error not to halve the
logarithm but to use double the standard error instead when deter-
mining the probability. When the degrees of freedom are equal, as
in these cases, the standard error is the square root of the reciprocal
of the number of degrees.

I greatly regret that I have not been able to produce a more
elegant example than that given above. I should have liked to have
been able to compose a set of data such that the analysis would show
us taking out (as in practice it does enable us to do) precisely the
same amounts of variance, under the different headings, as we had
previously put in. But it is one thing to understand a method well
enough to use it, and to follow fairly clearly the manner of its
operation ; but quite another, as I have found to my cost, to be able
to work it backwards well enough to construct an example of such a
kind. As it is, I can only hope that the example I have given,
imperfect as it is, may enable the reader to form some appreciation
of the way in which the method breaks up the total variabihty of
the data into all possible constituent parts and assesses each with
precision, leaving nothing to chance except that which chance has
introduced.

It is interesting to note that, if we had only a single communi-
cator, even though manifesting through two mediums, we could
never get to grips, on these lines, with the question of autonomy at
all, because any sunilarity at all between the (now only two) sets of
data would be taken out under W. It is only the possibility of
applying a kind of differential method as between John and Etta on
the one hand and Leonard and Sharphn on the other that gives us
the possibility of disentanghng whatever effects may really be due
to outside influence from those due to the mediums and their trance
conditions.

149] The Quantitative Study of Trance Personalities

211

B. Application of the Method
23

So soon as the method just discussed was brought to my notice
I hastened to apply it to the observations of the Leonard-Sharphn
experiment. In the first instance I used the “ bulked ” data,
that is to say, the sums of the (scaled) reaction times, or failures
in reproduction, for all five occasions on which the personalities
were tested, and I analysed the whole fist of 100 items in a single
calculation.

The results, which need not be discussed in detail here, were
singularly unpromising. Much the same applied when I broke the
data up into the “ blocks ” of 25 words^ in which they are actually
divided, for convenience of recording, during the tests. I also
wasted a great deal of time trying all manner of combinations and
permutations of analysis, such as testing the reactions times obtained
from one medium against the reproductions obtained from the other ;
or either or both against a third quantity — -Variety of Response (V)
— which I have lately been studying in a prehminary sort of way.
(In passing, it looks as if this is going to be a valuable indicator,
but a great deal of work will have to be done on it before it is ready
to make its debut.) I even embarked, with more heroism than
prudence, on the full analysis of the five-dimensional manifold
MCWOT (where 0 stands for Occasion and T for Test — i.e., RT,
RPN and V) having 5,999 degrees of freedom.

But it was only when, abandoning these rash projects, I labori-
ously took the whole outfit to little bits, so to speak, and apphed the
MOW analysis to each group of 4 x 25 data, block by block and
occasion by occasion, that light began to dawn.

The results obtained by this procedure were very much more
promising, at least as regards RPN ; the RT results were unin-
spiring, as was to be expected from the preliminary survey.

Encouraged by this and by the rather surprisingly high simi-
larities of the inter-list comparisons, I decided to add to my stock
of results by comparing the Leonard data of 1933 with the Sharp] in
data of 1935. For reasons given in Q.S.T.P., 1, p. 191, the material

^ In what follows, Block A refers to words 1-25, Block B to words 26-60,
and so on. The contents of the blocks are always the same, but the order of
the words is varied within the block from occasion to occasion. The occasions
(sittings) are numbered from I to V.

Whately Carington, M.A., M.Sc.

212

[part

of 1933 is limited to 75 words instead of 100, so that only blocks A,
B and C could be analysed here.

It further occurred to me that the method described knows noth-
ing and cares less, so to speak, of the label attached to the data, so
that the observations obtained from Sharplin might just as well be
obtained from Leonard so far as the mathematics is concerned. If
the method can ehminate effects due to similarities between Leonard
and Sharphn, it can equally well eliminate effects due to the simi-
larity between Leonard on one set of occasions (1933) and Leonard
on another set of occasions (1935). I accordingly have analysed
these data also for both RT and RPN.

Each such analysis follows precisely the ritual given in the
example of sections 16 to 21 above, except that there are 25 words
instead of only five.

Using a convenient notation in which the figures stand for the
years and a dash (') indicates Sharphn, I thus obtained 20 RT and
20 RPN values of z from the 35-35' material, 15 of each from the
33-35' and 15 of each again from the 33-35, making a total of 100
in all.

These 100 values of z (actually of 2z, vide supra) are displayed in
Table V, and the all-important point to remember is that, if there
were no extraneous influence at work, so that the values of CW from
which they are derived were wholly chance determined, these 100
values would be randomly distributed about zero with variance 4/24
or -16667.^

Little more than a glance at the Table is necessary to make us
suspect that this condition is far from being fulfilled. It is true that,
if we pool all the results, the general mean is not far from zero nor
the variance from what it should be, but if we look at the arrange-
ment of the quantities and the signs of structure, so to speak, which
they display, we are tempted to declare roundly that the random
distribution is definitely not realised. We must, however, be
extremely cautious here, for it is remarkable how, in a mass of
data of this kind, chance alone will throw up effects which look
very striking but can be shown by exact tests to be not at all
unlikely to occur.

* The original true z’s have variance 1/24 and S.E. equal the square root of
this ; the fact that we simply do not halve these quantities cannot alter their
significance ; therefore the S.E. of the double z’s must be double that of the
single z’s, and their variance four times as great, since the variance is the
square of the S.E.

213

149] The Quantitative Study of Trance Personalities

Actually we have

General mean = •03451. S.E. = -040825. P = -40 3096'1

which is neghgible, and for the variance (using the “ 2-test ”)

Sum of squares of all entries _ 16-33202

Expected value 16-66667 ’

whence 2 is - -0203. S.E. = -1000. P = -84 3096-2

which is even worse.

It should be noted here that, although the variance taken over
the whole 100 entries differs neghgibly from its expected value, it
varies considerably from one group of data to another, though never
to a significant extent. This also is to be expected. In what
follows, I use the theoretical variance throughout ; this is techni-
cally correct, because we know the variance of the “ population ” to
which the data belong, whereas to use the observed variance —
which might appear to be keeping closer to the facts — would
be merely to estimate what we want from data themselves under
test.

Reverting : On the other hand, at least one of the groups (35-35'
RPN) has a mean which differs significantly from zero, while some
of the others are not altogether neghgible and we have to consider
the hkelihood of these arising by chance in a random sample of six
such groups. We shall return to this in a moment.

But the two most striking features by far are, first, the preponder-
ance of negative results in the 33-35 (Leonard-Leonard) material,
and, second, the tendency for whatever is going on to become
stronger in the course of the sitting. That is to say, if the group as
a whole shows a positive result, then there is a tendency for the
positivity to increase from block A to block C or D. Compare for
example RPN 35-35' ; the Total for block A is only -0749, but
there is a fairly steady increase through B and C till for D it reaches
the high value of 2-5901.

This “ practice ” effect is very striking and extremely difficult to
reconcile with the idea of random distribution ; it must, however,
be tested for significance before being accepted as authentic.

214

Whately Caringto?i, M.A., M.Sc.

[part

We will first consider the tendency on the part of the Leonard-
Leonard analyses to give negative results.

Taking RT and RPN together we find that she gives 20 negative
items out of 30. If chance alone were at work, we should expect

15 ; the difference is 5, whence

3.333. p = .065 3097-1

Alternatively, and preferably, we have

Positive Negative Total

Leonard-Sharplin Comparisons - 40 .30 70

Leonard-Leonard ,, - 10 20 30

Total - - - 50 50 100

whence 4-762. P = -03 3097-2

which leaves little or no doubt that something non-chance is going
on, which is all that we are interested in at the moment.

Again, the mean of all Leonard-Leonard data differs significantly
from the mean of all Leonard-Sharplin data, for we have

Mean of all Leonard-Sharplin data -09729 with variance -00238

,, ,, Leonard-Leonard ,, - -11196 ,, ,, -00556

Difference of means -20925 ,, ,, -00794

and S.E. -08911,

whence P<-02 3098

Strictly speaking, I think that these two results (3097 & 3098) are
independent and thus in some sense cumulative, for there seems no
reason why the mean should not differ to the extent they do and
yet the L-L material be of the same predominant sign as the L-S ;
but I am not quite sure of this point, so will not claim it in the final
assessment.

To ascertain whether the six means themselves are likely to have
been produced by chance in a random sample of six groups we must
first calculate the probabihty of each individually being a chance
effect, and then combine the probabilities by the “ negative log-
arithm ” method of Fisher {Statistical Methods for Research Workers,
21-1, pp. 97-8, IVth Edn.).

215

149] The Quantitative Study of Trance Personalities

We then have

Group

Mean S.E.

Log,1/P

RT 35-35'

- -00298 09129

-97

•0306

3099-1

33-35'

-13515 -10541

-20

1-6094

„ -2

33-35

- -09847 -10541

-35

1-0498

„ -3

RPN 35-35'

-21781 -09129

-017

4-0745

„ A

33-35'

-03241 -10541

•76

•2744

„ -5

33-35

-12544 -10541

•23

1-4697

„ -6

Total . - . 8-5084

Multiplying by two gives - - 17-0168

which is a with 12 degrees of freedom, whence

P = -15 3100

where P is the probability that six such means arising by chance in
a random sample. The figure is suggestive, but far from significant.

To investigate the tendency for “ whatever is going on to get
more so as the sitting proceeds ”, we must determine the slope of
the best fitting straight line that can be drawn through the block
totals (or means) of the group concerned, find its standard error and
the probability of its having arisen by chance, and combine the
results as above.

The value of the slope (“ b ”) is found by the usual methods of the
text-books ; its samphng variance is shown by Fisher {loc. cit.,
p. 125), to be o^l8{x-x)^, where is the variance of the quantities
dealt with, and x has the meaning usual in such contexts (here the
number of the block). Applying this procedure, we have

Group b S.E. P LoOgl/P

RT 35-35' - -05836 -08165 -47 -7551 3101-1

33-35' -26271 -12910 -031 3-4738 „ -2

33-35 - -00923 -12910 -94 -0621 „ -3

RPN 35-35' -14103 -08165 -084 2-4766 „ -4

33-35' - -04065 -12910 -75 -2876 „ -5

33-35 - -28261 -12910 -029 3-5404 „ -6

Total - - - 10-5956

Multiplying by two gives - - 21-1912

which again is a ''^ifh 12 degrees of freedom, whence

P = -05 3102

where P is the probability of six such slopes arising by chance in a
random sample. The figures would usually be taken as indicating
a real effect.

216

Whately Carington, M.A., M.8c.

[part

If we wish, as we should, to err, if at all, on the side of over-
stringency, we may regard the six tests of the means and the six
tests of the slopes as twelve independent tests of significance of
qualitatively similar material and enquire as to the hkelihood of
twelve such results arising by chance in a random sample. We add
the doubled totals and obtain a with 24 degrees of freedom, thus :

= 38-2080. P = -03 3103

which may be taken as significant.

We should obtain this result just the same even if the slopes were
randomly distributed with respect to the means ; but actually there
is a strong association between them. The slope has the same sign
as the mean in five cases out of six, while, if we work the correlation
between mean and slope, we find

r = -783. P = -065 3104

I must leave the question of how best to combine these various
probabilities to a later section, and must make a short digression
to enquire into the possibihty of the effects observed being arti-
factual ; that is to say, due to causes not eliminated by the methods
employed.

The only possibility seems to be this : that for reasons too intri-
cate to discuss here it is impracticable to apply corrections for
practice and fatigue in the same way as is done when we are esti-
mating the ordinary similarities and differences between person-
alities. It might, accordingly, be suggested that similar rates of
slowing of reaction time, for example, might produce illusory like-
nesses between the L and S versions of J and E and thus raise the
value of CW relative to MOW in the analyses (or reduce it if the
rates of change were dissimilar). It is a little difficult to see just
how this would work out, for (unless I am mistaken) the first order
effects common to the two mediums will be ehminated by the
method, leaving only second order effects to operate ; but it is
certainly not mathematically excluded from possibility. The only
way to make perfectly sure of this point is to correct every individual
reading to the value it would have if no practice or fatigue were
operative, and then recalculate the whole outfit. There are 5,500
relevant observations at present and fife has hitherto proved too
short for so formidable an enterprise ; but I propose to undertake

149] The Quantitative Study of Trance Perso7ialities 217

it almost immediately, wlien I receive the additional 2,000 observa-
tions which Mr Drayton Thomas is collecting from Mrs Garrett at
the time of writing.

Meanwhile, there are a number of considerations which com-
pletely assure me, humanly speaking, that the results are not due
to anything of the kind ; on the contrary, the random incidence of
practice and fatigue effects is more hkely to have obscured than to
have generated the sort of thing we have been looking for.

1. The relevant corrections are always negligible in the case of
KPN ; but the KPN results obtained above are more, rather than
less, impressive than those for RT.

2. In comparing the 1933 material with the 1935 I have used the
same five 1933 sittings (namely I & III to VI) as for the comparisons
of Q.S.T.P., II iq.v.)- This means that the orders in which the
corresponding words were given were different (except in the case
of the first sitting) in the two years ; so that the effects in question
are practically eliminated here ; yet the 33-35' and 33-35 results are
not less impressive, on the whole, than the 35-35'.

3. Although it is not practicable to apply corrections, it is not
difficult to find the amount of “ inflation ” to which CW would be
subjected as a result of the unremoved practice or fatigue effects.
If these effects are responsible for the results obtained, there should
be a significant correlation between the amount of the inflation and
the value of the corresponding z. I have tested this on RT 35-35',
which, as unaffected by the considerations of 1, and 2, above, is the
most suspect group. The result is altogether neghgible, for the
coefficient of correlation is only ’126.

I have also performed analogous calculations to see whether there
is any tendency for the “ inflation ” to increase (or diminish) as
between blocks A and D of RPN 35-35', and a number of other tests
in addition. The results are quite neghgible in all cases.

We may accordingly conclude with assurance that the results
observed are not due to unehminated practice or fatigue effects.

The problem of how probabilities obtained from different tests
or experiments should be combined so as to give an over-all result
is distinctly tricky, and I have yet to see any satisfactory account
of it.

Of course, if we are given two samples of qualitatively similar raw
material {e.g. measurements of the heights of Scots and Dutchmen),
we should simply pool the data and treat them statistically as a
single sample. Or if we know the “ end-product probabilities ”, so

218

Whately Carington, M.A., M.Sc.

[part

to say, of a number of such (qualitatively similar) investigations,
we use the method employed in 28 and 29 above to determine the
chance of such a batch of probabilities arising as a result of random
sampling.

But it is not of such cases of these that I am thinhing ; the
question is rather one of combining the outcomes of tests or experi-
ments which are qualitatively dijferent, or independent. And by
“ independent ” I mean such that it is impossible to infer the out-
come of the one from a knowledge of the outcome of the others with-
out invoking the truth [or falsity) of the hypothesis under test.

Thus, if we wished to test the hypothesis that inter-planetary
space is filled with granulated cheese, we might approach the
problem either by a spectroscopic method or by analysing the
accretions of meteorites ; and these two methods would be inde-
pendent in the above sense. If our technique was so imperfect that
statistical methods had to be employed to assess the results, we
should obtain (perhaps) two probabilities of -05 each in favour of
this intriguing hypothesis. It would not be correct, I think, to
combine these by the negative logarithm method and arrive at the
over-all result of -2 as the final probability ; in fact, such a con-
clusion would be absurd on the face of it.

I submit that in the case of independent experiments, or their
equivalent, provided we are sure of the independence, the proper pro-
cedure is that of the “ witnesses ” formula for concurrent testimony
as given in the text-books {e.g. Hall & Knight, Higher Algebra,
p. 396 IVth Edn.). The argument may be presented as follows :

In all cases of the kind we are considering, we are enquiring
whether there is a “ real ” non-chance cause or influence at work,
or whether the effects observed can be ascribed to chance alone,
and the probablility of the latter supposition being true is the value
of P, which we obtain at the conclusion of any test on the subject.

Then, since there is certainly either a non-chance cause or not,
the probability of there being one, plus the probability of there
being none, must together equal unity ; but the value of the second
probability is P, so that the value of the probabihty of there actually
being a “ real ” cause is 1 - P.

Now suppose that we perform two independent experiments and
obtain two values and p.^ as the probabilities that their results are
due to chance alone. Then (l-^^) and {l-p.^ are the respective
probabilities of the results being due to something other than chance.

Equivalently, and more conveniently, we may regard the out-
comes of the two experiments as two statements to the effect that
chance alone is operative, with probabilities respectively of p^ and p^
of being true and of (1 ~Pi) and (1 -^2) of being false.

149] The Quantitative Study of Trance Personalities

219

Then, if chance alone is operative, both statements are true, and
the chance of this occurring fortuitously is the product p^p2 ; but
if a “ real ” influence is at work then both are false, and the chance
of this occurring by accident is the product {l-pf){l-p2). Thus,
the probabihty (so far as the evidence of these experiments goes) of
the results observed being due to chance alone is to the probability
of their being due to a real influence as PiP2 is to (1 ~P2)-

Whence the over-all probabihty that chance alone is responsible is

P1P2

P1P2+ i^-Pi){^-P2)

The same reasoning shows that if we have a number of proba-
bflities pi, P2, Ps, •■•Pn^ then the combined chance will be

PlP2Pz---Pn

P1P2P3 — (1 - -^>2) (1 -Pn)

The above argument appears sound, and it is easy to assure our-
selves that what I may, by analogy, term the “ boundary con-
ditions ” of the problem are satisfled. For example, if every value
of p were -5, the resultant P would also be -5, no matter how many
p’s were involved ; and this is as it should be, for a value of -5 means
that chance is exactly as likely to be responsible as not, so that the
experiment throws no hght on the subject. Similarly, the value of
any probability will be left unaltered by combining with it another
of value -5, which is also as it should be. Again, if two experiments
were to yield probabilities of, say, -1 and -9, the combined proba-
bihty would be -5 ; which is right, for each experiment precisely
contradicts the other, thus leaving us in our original state of a priori
nescience.

Finally, just as a succession of constituent p’s less than -5 will
progressively diminish the combination P, so a succession of con-
stituent p’s greater than -5 will progressively increase it till in the
hmit it becomes unity (which is precisely equivalent to the chance
of the alternative hypothesis becoming zero) ; but a succession of
the latter kind is just as unhkely to occur by chance as one of the
former, and a succession of random values of the constituent p’s,
such as the operation of chance would in fact give, would cause P to
approximate increasingly closely to -5.

In the present context we are concerned solely with the question
of whether the values of 2z given irr Table V are or are not randomly
distributed around a mean of zero with variance ■ 16667.

220

Whately Carington, M.A., M.Sc.

[part

From the point of view of the last section it would appear that
the RT and RPN results are “ independent ” in the relevant sense ;
for to use our previous knowledge that a failure in reproduction is
usually associated with a prolongation of reaction time, or other like
information, would be tantamount to invoking the (falsity of the)
hypothesis we are testing, namely that there is no cause, other than
chance, at work behind the scenes, i.e. no extraneous personality
possessed of the characteristics concerned. But I shall not trouble
to separate the two tests here, for the results are sufficiently coercive
without doing so.

Taking the two tests together we have the following items of
evidence, P being the probability in each case that the effects are
due to chance alone on the hypothesis under test.

Probability of the six means being due to
random sampling - - . . -

3100

•15

Probability of the six “ slopes ” being due to
random sampling . . . - .

3102

•05

Probability of the observed association be-
tween means and slopes being due to chance

3101

•065

Probability of the difference between the
means of L - S and L - L results being due
to chance - -

3098

•02

Applying the formula of the preceding section, we have

•15 X -05 X -065 X -02

“ -15 X -05 X -065 X -02 + -85 x -95 x -935 x -98

•000009750

“•739922500

= 1-3x10-5 3105

which is sufficiently significant to meet all requirements.

Even if we were to adopt the ultra-conservative (and, as I hold,
erroneous) course of treating these four items as if they were inde-
pendent “tests of significance”, instead of independent pieces of
evidence bearing on the point at issue, we should still have

No.

2 Loogl/P

3100

3-7944

3102

5-9914

3104

5-4662

3098

7-8240

Total - - - 23-0760 a with 8 D.P.

P less than -01

.3106-1

149] The Quantitative Study of Trance Personalities 221

and the same would be true if we followed on from KN 3103, adding
merely the last two items, for we should then have

^2=51.4932 with 28 D. F., and P again less than -01 ...3106-2

It would appear, therefore, that the statistical significance of the
results is not in doubt and that the effects observed cannot reason-
ably be ascribed to chance.

Summary and Conclusions
34

In the first part of this paper, while considering various routine
comparisons, we have occasion to note the remarkable stability of
the controls “ Feda ” and “ Silver ”, particularly as regards KT, as
compared with the normal personalities of their mediums ; in the
case of Feda, this applies to long periods of months as well as to the
shorter period covering a set of sittings. The implication is that the
controls are derived from relatively “ deep ” and permanent strata
of the total personality, of a nature not easily disturbed by the
“ changes and chances of this mortal fife ”.

Somewhat similarly, we find that the reproduction test appears
to penetrate to deeper and more permanent levels than does the
reaction time ; but there are certain anomahes, and it would be
unwise to suppose that the two sorts of “ depth ” thus indicated are
of the same kind.

Very remarkable is the striking resemblance of Feda to Silver,
especially on RT ; in the case of inter- fist tests Feda carries this to
the extent of being more hke Silver than she is like herself — an
anomaly which calls for explanation.

In the second part we have seen how it is possible to devise and
apply a method which will eliminate from the reactions of two
communicators tested with different medimns all effects due to
similarities between the communicator states of those mediums
themselves. VTien this is done on so detailed a scale that we can
deal with the statistics of the resultant statistics, we find that the
results are not attributable to chance, while there is no reason to
suppose, and ample reason to doubt, that they are artifactual.

When Leonard material is tested against Leonard, instead of
against Sharplin, negative results predominate ; the reason for this
is at present entirely obscure to me, but it should be noted that the
effect is apparently not of the same kind as the countersimilarity

222

Whately Carington, M .A., M .Sc. [part 149]

previously noted in the case of controls. When we fully understand
the imphcations of this curious fact (which, frankly, I do not at the
moment) and can produce a plausible theory to account for it, we
shall, I fancy, have made a considerable advance in our under-
standing of trance mediumship.

As regards the main point at issue, namely whether there is or is
not adequate evidence for the operation of some extraneous influence
(presumably — though not, perhaps, inevitably — something in the
nature of what John and Etta claim to be), I can only adopt this
position :

If nothing more important that a few million pounds or the fate
of a couple of nations were involved, I should feel disposed to declare
flatly that the operation of some such extraneous influence had been
estabhshed, and to leave it at that. But since the admission of such
a conclusion, arrived at for the first time in history by the use of
exact quantitative methods, would open up prospects beside which
the achievements of relativity theory woifld be of no more than
parochial interest, I prefer to make precaution doubly cautious and
not to commit myself (if ever) till I have reworked the entire calcu-
lation, with the additional refinements indicated and the additional
material now being collected.

If we then obtain the same results, or more so, we may reasonably
conclude that there is “ something there ”, and apply ourselves to
the more dehcate task of deciding what it is.

Table I

Individual Consistencies (“ I ”)

Peeson-

EN ALITY «

Peecextages from
Earlier Experiments

Reaction Times

3001

•3342

10-4

32-2

Lj 26-7 ; L, 42-9
Fi21-0; F3 41-3

•3831

10-6

36-5

•1944

•01

19-2

Ji 15-2

•1485

•06

14-7

El 10-2

•1024

•20

11-0

•5861

10-9

52-7

•1990

•013

19-6

3008

•2610

•001

25-5

Reproductions

3009

•0857

•28

8-5

Li 26-6 ; Lg 15-0

•3144

10-4

30-4

Fi 25-5 ; F3 39-3

•2570

•001

25-2

Ji 28-0

= 2

•2750

•001

26-8

Ej 39-0

•2370

•003

23-3

{N.B. Above, the suffix

•3874

10-6

36-9

1 refers to the First Thomas

•3801

10-6

32-5

Experiment of 1933, the

3016

•1773

•025

17-5

suffix 3 to the Irving Ex-

periment of 1934.)

N.B. All values of P are approximate ; in most cases the exact
values are somewhat less than those given.

Table II

Intra-Group Similarities and Differences

Similarity Difference

Pair

P/2

Reaction Times ; Leonard Group

3017

•0241

2-4

•405

•3531

10-5

•4063

38-5

lO-'i

•1105

•16

-•1959

19-3

•025

•4227

10-'

•0590

5-9

•28

•1931

•015

-•0617

6-2

•27

•3007

10-^

•2426

23-8

•01

•0380

•65

Reaction Times : Sharplin Group

3023

SS'

•0174

1-7

•43

•4332

10-’

SJ'

•3520

34-0

•001

•0747

•35

SE'

•4314

40-6

10-5

•0531

•50

J'E' -3232

31-2

•001

•0523

•50

Reproductions

1 ; Leonard Group

3027

•2086

20-5

•02

•0238

•76

•2610

25-5

•005

•1873

•06

•3048

29-6

•001

•0099

•90

•1339

13-3

•09

•1392

•08

•3195

30-9

•007

•0396

•62

•3537

34-0

•001

•0519

•51

Reproductions

: Sharplin Group

3033

SS'

•1994

19-7

•025

•1587

•04

SJ'

•3789

36-0

10-^

•1221

•12

SE'

•2536

24-8

•01

•0408

•61

3036

J'E

' -3446

33-2

•001

•0779

•33

N.B.

All values of P/2 and P are approximate ; in most cases the

exact values are somewliat smaller tliaii those given.

For Comparison .

Pair

% RT

2034

8-9

-3-9

114

-3-1

124

33^2

Percentage Similarities from Earlier Experiments.

% RT %EPN
4-2

5-8

40-3

12-1

2074

115

125

Pair

5-8

23-2

11-9

34-2

45-8

11-5

' ^

Table III

Inter-Group Similarities and Differences

Similarity Difference

Pair

P/2

Reaction Times

3037

- -0500

5-0

-31

-3134

10-“

FS'

-3577

34-3

-0002

-2040

•01

JJ'

- -0105

1-0

-46

-2113

•01

EE'

- -0946

9-4

-175

•1866

•02

JE'

-0078

-7

-47

—

EJ'

-0084

-9

-465

—

Reproductions

3043

-1152

10-1

-125

-1002

•21

FS'

-1738

17-2

-04

-2385

•003

JJ'

-2998

29-1

-003

•1584

•04

EE'

-2698

26-3

-005

•0638

•62

JE'

-2236

22-0

-013

—

3048

EJ'

-2798

27-3

-003

—

N.B. All values of P/2 and P are approximate; in most cases the
exact values are somewhat smaller than those given,

Table IV

Inter-List Similarities

Pair

P/2

L ’33 - L ’34

3049

- -0705

•26

3059

- -0434

•355

L ’33 - L ’35

•0632

•295

•0579

•31

F ’33 - F ’34

•0404

•365

•2578

•013

F ’33 - F ’35

•0957

•205

•3849

•001

J ’33 - J ’35

•0743

•26

•1023

•19

E ’33 - E ’35

•1352

•12

•3181

•003

J ’33 -J'

•1322

•125

•1814

•06

E ’33 - E'

•0616

•30

•2964

•005

L ’33 -S'

-•0167

•445

•0333

•385

F ’33 -S'

3058

•3472

•002

•0086

•47

N.B. As before, values of P/2 are approximate.

Table V

Summary of Analyses (MCW) for Blocks and Occasions : All Combinations
N.B. The figures given are double z’s, each with Variance -16667 and Standard Error -40825,

Reaction Times

Block

Occasions
II III

Total

Data :
3069 A

- -0863

35-35'

•2336 -6599

•0000

-•1477

•6595

-•1911

•2035

-•0871

-•0194

--3170

-•4111

•3382

- -0645

- -3708

•2454

•0649

•2132

- -4305

•0602

-•5597

•0824

•3264

-•5212

Total -

-•3697

•4328

- -3577

•3084

- -0734

- -0596

Data :
3073 A

- -0084

33-35'

-•3440 --1669

- -0862

•1102

- -4953

•2219

•4104

-•5165

•4670

-•1920

•3907

-•1123

•4074

•7251

1-3026

-•1910

2-1318

Total -

•1012

•4738

•0416

1-6834

- -2728

2-0272

Total -

- -2685

•9066

-•3161

1-9918

- -3462

1-9676

Data :
3076 A

- -3347

33-35

- -3602 - -3707

•1741

•1770

-•7145

- -5298

•0117

•4202

-•1983

•3404

•0442

- -2468

•1908

•0696

- -2539

-•5665

- -8068

Total -

-1-1113

-•1577

•1191

-•2781

- -0491

-•4771

Grand Total -

- 1-3798

•7489

-•1970

1-7137

- -3953

•4905

Reproductions

Occasions

Block

II III

Total

Data ;

35-35'

3079

•2765

-•0176 -0938

•2876

- 5654

■0749

•1776

-•2687 -1084

•3857

-•3215

•0815

•4128

•7041 --3677

•3662

•4943

1-6097

-6386

•3409 -6733

•1163

•8210

2-5901

Total -

1-5055

•7587 -5078

M558

•4284

4-3562

Data :

33 - 35'

3083

-•4143

•4314 -7719

•2304

-1-0609

-•0415

•3895

•2844 - -2940

- -0429

•6387

•9757

- -4930

- -0349 -2064

•0697

-•1962

- -4480

Total

-•5178

•6809 -6843

•2572

-•6184

•4862

Total

•9877

1-4396 1-1921

1-4130

-•1900

4-8424

Data :

33-35

3086

•3329

1-0212 -4987

- -1034

-•2151

1-5343

-•5726

-•4104 --5154

- -4306

-•1951

-2-1241

3088

-•1657

- -0844 - -5477

- -3295

-•1645

-1-2918

'Total -

- -4054

•5264 --5644

- -8635

- -5747

-1-8816

Grand

Total -

•5823

1-9660 -6277

•5495

-•3142

2-9608

Grand

Total, all entries

3-4513

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Society for Psychical Research

PART 150

REVIEW OF MR WHATELY CARINGTON’S WORK ON
TRANCE PERSONALITIES i

By Robert H. Thouless
I. Introduction

My function in the present paper, as I understand it, is not primarily
to express my own opinion as to the conclusions that may legiti-
mately be drawn from Mr Whately Carington’s investigation of
trance personahties.^ My more important task is to try to give
such an account of his methods as may enable even those who are
not famihar with the mathematical devices which he employs to
understand these methods sufficiently for them to judge the experi-
ments for themselves. The importance of the experiments is obvious.
Whatever the answer may prove to be, it is a considerable achieve-
ment to have devised a method of submitting to quantitative and
statistical test, the problem of whether the alleged spirits which
communicate through mediums are the autonomous personahties
they claim to be or whether they are merely organisations within
the medium’s own personahty.

^ This paper was read in an abbreviated form at a Private Meeting of the
Society on June 30, 1937.

^ “ The Quantitative Study of Trance Personalities,” I, II and III, W.
Whately Carington, Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, xlii,
pp. 173-240 ; xlui, pp. 319-361 ; and xliv, pp. 189-222. These are hereafter
referred to as TP 1 , TP 2 and TP 3 respectively.

N 223

224

Robert H. Thouless

[part

We must all admire the industry with which the author has
laboured, the boldness and originality of his design, and the perse-
verance with which he has overcome difficulties. I understand that
he knew little of statistical methods when he started and has had
to acquire this knowledge in the course of his work. If he has made
mistakes, as I think he has, this is less remarkable than the fact
that he has acquired mastery of a complicated mathematical
technique which he required as a tool for his investigation.

I think that such work deserves that we should examine and
criticise it with as much care as the author has put into the investi-
gation. Probably many of us who would be willing to do this have
found the task rather a formidable one. Certainly I found it so
myself. The author has not made it easy for the reader to follow
him, and many readers probably feel themselves wholly debarred
from following him by the fact that he uses statistical methods
which make his pages fearful with formulae.

Unfamiliarity with statistical methods is really no reason why
any reader should not be able to form his own opinion as to the
conclusions of the work. Statistics are only an intermediate step
in drawing a conclusion as to fact. The final step is a logical one.
If we are told what relationships are mdicated by statistical methods,
we need not be mathematicians to see what conclusions can be drawn
from these relationships. My purpose then is to demonstrate the
statistical methods used by W. W. C. so far as is necessary for
imderstanding what sort of conclusions they point to, to say whether
I think the statistical reasoning is sound, and finally to put my
readers into a position in which they can ask for themselves the final
logical question ; “ What does it all prove? ”

II. Problems and Methods

The ultimate problem of Mr Whately Carington is whether the
controls and the communicators in mediumistic seances are, as they
claim to be, autonomous jjersonalities, or whether they are secondary
personalities of the medium. A completely convincing answer to
that question may, of course, be remote, and the more immediate
aim of his research has been to develop a technique of experimenta-
tion and of treating the raw data of his results, and to discover
whether there is reasonable hope that this kind of experiment will
be able ultimately to provide a complete or partial answer to this
question. A secondary object of the research was that, if it did not
provide evidence for the existence of communicating spirits, it
should give information about the psychology of trance states.

150] Revieiv of Carington^s Work on Trance Personalities 225

The first of these problems we may call (in W. W. C.’s terminology)
the prol)lem of the “ antonomy of commnnicators There are
two main alternatives to be tested (with certain intermediate
possibilities). First, there is the spiritist explanation of communi-
cators, that they are really different and autonomous personalities
who can communicate through one medium or through another.
The other possibility is that they are merely unconscious creations
of the medium in the trance state, or at best secondary personalities
of the medium.

When we speak of the possibility that John and Etta are different
personalities, we mean primarily that they are different iii the same
sort of way as any two hving persons are diiferent. The matter is
complicated by the fact that, if we judge difference of personality
by difference of character and interests, we all know that one and
the same person may differ considerably in these respects at different
times. Also, of course, truly different personahties may appear
more or less similar in any characteristics that we can use to identify
them. The changes in a single human being may be so great that
we speak of “ double personality ”. This simply means that,
within the limits of a single human body, there are differences of
personality as great as we commonly find between two bodies. In
considering how great a difference must exist between communi-
cators before they can be considered to be different personahties,
it may be necessary to bear in mind the possibility (mentioned by
W. W. C.) that the separateness between personalities may be less
complete in the spirit world than in this world. J. and E., even
though both were autonomous communicating spirits, might have
more in common than J. and E. had in this life. This would not
prevent W. W. C.’s latest method (developed in TP 3) from identi-
fying them as autonomous personalities provided that anything
remained peculiar to J. and to E. respectively through whatever
medium they communicated. If, however, there were after death
a continuing existence in which all individuality was lost and all
personalities were fused in one world-soul, I see no possibility that
evidence for such continuance could be oljtained in this way. Nor
would there then seem to be any sense in which we could speak of
autonomous spirit personalities. The method can only reveal spirit
communicators who, communicating through different mediums,
retain some individual characteristics in which they differ from other
communicators.

Mr Whately Carington began his enquiry by devising methods of
measuring the amount of similarity or difference l^etween different
trance personahties by finding out how much they resembled each

226

Robert H. Thouless

[PABT

other or differed from each other in their performance in the “ word-
association test While the methods of using the data obtained
were changed a great deal in the course of the investigation, the use
of the word-association test as the source of the data was retained
throughout.

This is a test well known in psychological laboratories, although
apphcation to this problem was altogether new when W. W. C.
started his work.^ The method was used by Jung in order to in-
vestigate the emotional complexes of his patients. A series of words
was called out to the subjects who were required to respond, as
quickly as possible, with the first word that came into their minds.
The time taken for the response was noted by means of a stop-watch.
This is the “ reaction time ” (W. W. C.’s RT). At the end of the
experiment the same fist was called out again and the subject was
asked to try to respond with the same word as before. This is the
“ reproduction test ” (W. W. C.’s RPN). The fact that a word had
a hidden emotional significance was said to be shown by the fact
that it has an unusually long reaction time, and that there was a
strong tendency for a failure in reproduction, that is, for a different
word to be given as response on the second reading of the list.
Another measure of the emotional significance of the word may be
obtained by connecting the subject with a suitable system of
electrical apparatus and noting the change in his electrical resist-
ance when he responds to the word (the psycho-galvanic reflex
or PGR). High emotional significance is shown by a large drop in
resistance.

Although W. W. C. used the PGR in his early experiments, he
did not find it a satisfactory tool for his purpose, and, in this survey,
we need not bother about it but confine our attention to reaction
times and reproductions. I shall use the word “ response ” as a
general term to cover both RT and RPN. We must remember that
unusually long reaction time indicates the same kind of thing as
failure of reproduction.

I think the experimental psychologist would feel more happy about
Mr Whately Carington’s work if somewhat fuller details could be
given of the exact methods employed in applying the test, and if a
small sample could be given of the actual raw results of the test.
Perhaps both of these deficiencies may be remedied in a future
pubhcation.

The same test was apphed, at (I think always) the same sitting
to the control and to different communicators who were communi-
cating through the medium, and results were obtained generally
^ Since then, the method has also been used by Mr Hereward Carrington.

150] Review of Carington’s Work on Trance Personalities 227

on six different occasions. These six sets of readings for any
“ personahty ” were treated together for the subsequent mathe-
matical working out of results.

III. The Course op the Investigation — Kecantations

AND CONCLUSIONS

With admirable open-mindedness, IVIr Whately Carington has
been very ready to change his opinions between successive publica-
tions. No one will blame him for this, but it does make it rather
difficult for the reader to get an idea of the investigation as a whole,
since in reading TP(r?-), he must bear in mind what part of it has
been repudiated in TP(m + 1), and having read the last of the series
he may wonder how much of that will be repudiated in the still
nnpubhshed next one. This source of difficulty could, of course,
have been avoided if the author had felt himself able to postpone
publication until all criticisms by himself or others could have been
considered, and it is to be hoped that when the investigation is
brought together in its final form it will be given the self-consistency
of which circumstances have now deprived it.

Until then, we must try as well as we can to bring the parts into
relationship with each other, and I will try to give a brief account of
the conclusions which have been advanced, and which have been
later withdrawn. The author has very kindly indicated to me what
parts of TP 3 will be repudiated in TP 4.

First, in TP 1 we have a description of experimental and statistical
techniques, which, with a few modifications, were used throughout.
Methods of calculating indices of “ similarity ” and “ difference ”
are explained in an appendix. This paper is written wfith the as-
sumption (that seemed to W. W. C. to be justified by his own earlier
experiments) that one and the same personality will always produce
sets of reactions which are not significantly different.

The most important change of opinion in TP 2 is that this assump-
tion is given up. Mr Gatty tested by Mr Besterman had shown that
he produced|significantly different sets of reactions by merely imagin-
ing himself in different life-situations. This makes W. W. C.’s
problem much more difficult since it is no longer possible to conclude
the autonomy of a communicator merely from the fact that his
reactions are significantly different from those of the medium, and
more complex methods of solving the problem must be sought.
We may indeed notice that, since Mr Gatty was not tested in really
different but only imagined different situations, and since he does
not appear to be a particularly unstable person, it may be doubted

228

Robert H. Thouless

[part

whether the range of “ differences ” between different phases of the
same person may not be much greater than is revealed by the
Besterman-Gatty experiment.

In Part III of TP 2 an important argument is developed that
there is a relationship of “ countersimilarity ” between mediums
and controls and that this is evidence that controls are secon-
dary personahties of the medium. This argument is dealt with
later in the present paper. It is not modified in any way later by

w. w. c.

In Part V of TP 2, the author tackles the autonomy of communi-
cators tentatively by a new method. The same communicators
are tested but with different mediums. The communicators turn
out to be “ similar ” to themselves even when the mediums are
different. This cannot be taken directly as a measure of the real
similarity of the communicators to themselves unless we can first
eliminate the effect of the “ similarity ” of the mediums. This
W. W. C. here attempts to do by the method of partial correlation*
He puts forward his conclusions very tentatively with some doubt
as to the legitimacy of the method.

In TP 3, he decides (as a result of Professor Fisher’s criticism)
that the method of partial correlation cannot legitimately be used
for this data. This does not mean a complete abandonment of this
kind of enquiry (the “ inter-medium method ”) but only of the
particular statistical method used in TP 2. Another method based
on analysis of variance is, used in TP 3 on the inter-medium data*
At the end of TP 3, the author suggested that evidence for the
autonomy of communicators had become very strong although he
was not satisfied that it was sufficiently so for complete conviction.
Further criticism from Professor Fisher caused this claim also to be
abandoned.^ Unfortunately, these conclusions were largely based
on “ reproduction ” material. A reproduction score must either be
-fl or 0, so it cannot be distributed even approximately in the
“ normal ” distribution assumed in the mathematical method of
“ analysis of variance ” used by W. W. C. While relations of
difference and similarity may be indicated by the z for “ reproduc-
tion ” data obtained hy the analysis of variance, neither the amount
of this z nor its calculated standard error can be rehed on. This
objection does not apply to reaction times and, presumably,
TP 4 will deal with the work that W. W. C. is now engaged on,

^ I am here importing recantations and new work not yet published by
W. W. C. which he lias kindly communicated to me by letter. I should like
to take this opportunity of acknowledging the friendly help which has been
given to me by the author in all my study of his work.

150] Review of Carington’s Work on Trance Personalities 229

of seeing how far the same results emerge from reaction time data
alone.

W. W. C. also considers that a mistake was made in this section
in the inclusion of two sets of data from the same medium (Mrs
Leonard). Since the object of TP 3 was to find out whether a com-
municator, ostensibly the same individual communicating through
different mediums, gave evidence that he was really the same, the
inclusion of two sets of data from the same medium was obviously
a mistake, because a positive result would have shown only that
(John communicating through Mrs Leonard) at one time was the
same as Jj^ at another time, which would have been much less
strong evidence of the autonomous existence of John than would
demonstration of the identity of Jj^ with John as communicating
through another medium.

One rather important recantation of the methods of TP 3 is of
W. \V. C.’s unfortunate excursion into Hall and Knight’s algebra
in paras. 32 and 33 for a method of combining independent proba-
bilities. This he now gives up altogether.

To sum up. The general method of experimenting remains the
same at the end as at the beginning. For different reasons, both the
“ psychogalvanic ” responses, and the records of reproductions,
have been now discarded. This really matters very little ; W. W. C.
needed only one of the three kinds of response for his purpose, and
he has found out by experience that the reaction-time records best
serve his needs. The general method of argument in TP 3 is retained
although many of its details are now regarded by W. W. C. as
mistaken. This method, simplified and amplified and apphed to
reaction time data, will form the foundation of his next contribution .
The conclusion in TP 3 is no longer defended on the evidence there
presented. The conclusion that controls are countersimilar to
mediums seems alone to have suffered no vicissitudes and remains
now as stated in TP 2.

There is one point al^out these recantations that I should like to
make clear. They might easily be represented by an unsympathetic
critic as merely a process by which Mr Whately Carington has
blundered from one error into another. I think, on the contrary,
that they are a process by which his technique of enr^uiry has passed
from a relatively poor one to a good one. The methods used in TP 3
are enormously better than those in TP 1 although TP 3 happens
to be disfigured in its later part by serious errors. Probably every
scientific investigator improves his methods of working by a process
of trial and error. It is only unfortunate that the “ error ” part of
this process has in W. W. C.’s case been immortalised in print.

230

Robert H. Thouless

[PABT

IV. The Measure op “ Similarity ”

We may remind ourselves of the nature of the results for any
one “ personahty For each of the six sittings there was a set
of “ reaction times ” which were the times in seconds that he had
taken to respond to each word. Certain devices of scaling were used
(clearly explained and adequately justified by the author in TP 2)
in order to get rid of irregularities caused by abnormally long
reaction times. The reaction times, so corrected, were the raw
material for what W. W. C. calls the RT data. The raw mate-
rial for his RPN data were marks of 1 put opposite words that
had been correctly reproduced on the second reading of the list,
and of 0 against those that were incorrectly reproduced or not at all.

It is clear that two lists of responses (for the sake of clearness
let us think of reaction times) obtained at any sitting from two
personahties, may either resemble or dilfer from each other to any
degree. Also it is clear that there is more than one respect in which
they may be said to be similar or to dilfer. Two sets of reaction
times in which every word caused exactly the same time of response
to botli personalities would obviously be exactly similar on any
method of reckoning. Let us suppose, however, that one personality
always took exactly twice as long as the other in responding to each
word. The two lists would then be dissimilar if we took the mean
time of response as our criterion of similarity, but would be exactly
similar if we took as our criterion the general shape of the pattern
of response time, that is, the proportion of each response time to
the average time for the personahty making it.

It is in the second sense that W. W. C. measures “ similarity ”.
Two fists are “ similar ” if a word wfiicfi causes in one personality
a response winch is long for liim, causes in the other personality a
response which is similarly long for him, irrespective of whether
the absolute times are or are not the same. His reason for choosing
tins criterion of similarity is, I think, that he finds in practice that
it is a better indication of how much the personalities really resemble
each other than would be, let us say, a comparison of their average
times. Also I think that this might reasonably be expected and is
the most commonly used criterion of resemblance in everyday fife.
We say, for example, tfiat a small boy resembles his father because
his features, although they differ much in absolute size from those
of his father, are related to each other in the same way as his father’s ;
his nose is absolutely much shorter than his father’s but, like his
father’s, it is long in proportion to the other features of his face,
and so on.

160] Review of Carington’s Work on Trance Personalities 231

The detection of similarities of this kind is a common problem
in apphed psychology. It is the measurement of a “ correlation
If three boys had marks in a Greek examination of 70%, 60% and
50% respectively, and in a Latin examination of 85%, 80% and
75%, we should say that these two sets of results were completely
correlated. A boy who did well or badly in Greek would do corres-
pondingly well or badly in Latin. The conclusion we should be
hkely to draw would be that the two examinations measured the
same mental capacity. If on the other hand, a boy who did well
in Greek proved always to do correspondingly badly in Latin, we
should say that the two sets of results were completely negatively
correlated. If there were no relationship either positive or negative
between the two orders they would be uncorrelated.

W. W. C.’s method of measuring “ similarity ” is, in effect, the
measurement of a correlation. The average size of response of one
personahty A to the first word of the word list, his average response
to the second, to the third, and so on, form one series. The other
series is formed by the average responses to these same words given
by a second personahty B. The amount of correlation between
these two series is a measure of the similarity of the two personalities
in the sense in which W. W. C. is speaking of similarity. The
responses used for this measurement may be reaction times, repro-
ductions, or psychogalvanic reflexes, so for the same pair of per-
sonahties there may be calculated an RT similarity, an RPN
similarity and a PGR similarity.

The most famihar way of calculating a correlation is by the use
of the “ Bravais-Pearson ” formula which gives a measurement (the
correlation coefficient or r) which is -fl for complete positive
correlation, - 1 for complete negative correlation, and 0 for no
correlation, and, of course, some intermediate value between 0 and
-fl for such degrees of similarity as are commonly met with in
practice which faU short of perfect correlation in various amounts.

W. W. C. does not, in fact, use the Bravais-Pearson formula but
obtains a measurement of the amoxmt of correlation by the use of
the method of analysis of variance. This gives a quantity 2 which
also measures the degree of similarity of the mean responses of the
two personahties concerned to the same words of the word list.
This quantity z can be derived from r by a simple arithmetical
transformation and differs from r in the fact that for perfect cor-
relation it would be infinite iustead of being unity. Those who are
used to thinking of degrees of correlation in terms of the correlation
coefficient r may find it helpful to remember that, for small values,
z is only slightly greater than r, the difference being less than 10%

Robert H. Thouless

232

[part

when z is 0-5, so below this value we shall not be far wrong to think
of z as equal to r.

Realising that, to many of his readers, very little idea of the
degree of similarity is conveyed by the statement that z is, let us
say, 0-43, W. W. C. in his last paper transforms this into a percentage
of similarity by converting it into the corresponding r and multi-
plying by lOOd Thus the above similarity would be expressed as
a 40% similarity. The formula used [r = - l)/(e^^ -t 1)] is strictly

only the correct one for deriving r from z when (as in “ similarity ”
measurements) only two series are compared aiifl not, therefore, for
the measurement of “ individualities ” (see Section VII) for which
it is also used. This, however, does not, I think, matter since
W. W. C. is quite justified in defining what he means by “ percentage
individuahty ” as 100 x (e^^ - l)/(e^* -fl), whether or not this is
equivalent to 100 x r.

The occurrence of a positive measurement of similarity is, of
course, a merely mathematical fact whose interest for us lies in its
indication of the psychological fact that the two personalities
resemble each other. Since confusion may arise by using the one
word similarity for the mathematical indication of a fact and also
for the fact it indicates, I shall use inverted commas for “ similarity ”
(or W. W. C.’s symbol “ S ”) when what is meant is the mathematical
fact that there is a positive value of z in the similarity measurements,
reserving the word similarity without inverted commas for the fact
of resemblance. As will be discussed in more detail later, “ similar-
ity ” must exceed a certain minimum value (the lowest value for
significance) before it can be treated as evidence of similarity.

If we measured the “ similarity ” of human faces by the method
suggested as analogous to W. W. C.’s measure of “ similarity ” in
responses to the word-association test — i.e. by measuring the
correlation between the measurements of the features of any two
faces — we shoidd find that some faces, such as those of relatives,
resembled each other closely while others resembled each other less
but that in no one was resemblance altogether .absent. Mr Whately
Carington’s face and my own are not very similar as human faces
go, but would be much more “ similar ” than would be either of
our faces to that, let us say, of a chimpanzee. The common human
form would itself give a certain degree of “ similarity ”. Thus if,
from the “ similarity ” of a face seen at one time to that seen at
another time, we wanted to prove that they were one and the same
face, we could not be content merely to infer this from the fact
that our measurements showed high “ similarity ”. It would be

» TP 3, p. 192.

150] Review of Carington’s Worh on Trance Perso7ialities 233

necessary to show that this “ similarity ” was greater than that
found in a large range of comparisons between different people’s
faces.

There is the same reason for expecting very generally some degree
of “ similarity ” between different persons in their responses to a
word hst. Most people, for example, may be expected to give longer
reaction times to “ dead ” on W. W. C.’s hst than to “ window ”
(TP 1, p. 223). So far as they react to words of common human
interest, they will tend to be “ similar One man’s individual
history may, however, give strong emotional significance to “ shijj ”
which does not exist for another. Such individual differences will
tend to make their reactions differ. If, however, there are words
to which all personalities tend alike to give prolonged responses,
there will be a general tendency for all personahties to show more
or less positive “ similarity ”, tending, of course, to be greater if
the personalities really closely resemble each other. This general
tendency to resemble each other is what W. W. C. calls the “ common
humanity ” factor.

Since the resemblance due to common humanity may be present
in any comparison between two personalities, we caimot, merely
by measuring their similarity and finding it high, prove that a
personahty A communicating through one medium is really the
same as one claiming also to be A communicating through another
medium. This difficulty was fully reahsed by W. W. C. m the later
stages of his research (in TP 3) when he adopted a method of
demonstrating identity less simple but entirely free from this ob-
jection. The seriousness of the difficulty was certainly not realised
by him at the early stages of the research. In the first pages of TP 1,
for example, he compared the quantities obtained by the reaction
time test with the measurement of finger-prints for the identification
of criminals. Unhappily the analogy is imperfect in its most
important quantitive aspect. By comparing a small number of
points of coincidence between finger-prints, identity can be estab-
hshed because the similarity is greater than could be found once in
a billion times between two different people. In a mental test on
the other hand, at best, the degree of resemblance between two
performances by the same person is no greater than can be found in
a not very large range of different people. This seems to be j^arti-
cularly true of the word association test, as may be seen by the very
low measurements for self-consistency obtained by W. W. C. (TP 2,
table II). The attempt to identify personalities by their reaction
time responses is as different as it can well be from identifying them
by their finger-prints.

234

Robert H. Thouless

[part

We have already said that “ similarity ” as measured in this way
will tend on the whole to be greater in those personalities which
most closely resemble each other. This, however, is a different
thing from saying that the amount of a “ similarity ” measurement
measures the degree of similarity between the two personahties.
Correlation coefficients are, in fact, often used as measures of degree
of resemblance but this usage is generally agreed to be improper.
In truth, a measure of correlation depends 2)artly but not wholly
on the degree of similarity of the series compared. This means
that we cannot properly conclude that two personalities A and B
resemble each other more than do C and D from the fact that A
and B have a higher z for “ similarity ” than have C and D. It
seems, therefore, that much of the discussion in TP 1, j^aras. 21
onwards, of the amount by which different personalities in a mani-
fold resemble each other, is based on mistaken j^remises and should
be discarded or attemjffed by other methods. A significant “ S ”
measurement indicates that there is similarity between the personal-
ities compared, but the relative sizes of the z for different person-
ahties is a very uncertain indication of the degree of similarity
between them.

I do not think that the conception of “ counter-similarity ”
should offer any obstacle to understanding. This is the relationship
more commonly known as “ negative correlation ”. If we found
that those people who took the most medicine were on the whole
in the worst health, this would be a “ negative correlation ” or
“ counter-similarity ” between medicine-taking and good health.
This would be as definite evidence of a causal connection between
medicine-taking and health as would be a “ positive correlation ”
or “ similarity ”, thus differing altogether in its indication from
the mere absence of correlation which suggests no causal connection.

The features of any two human faces are “ similar ” ; a human
face and a jjlaster mould of a face would be “ counter-similar ”
whereas the features of a human face and the roughnesses on the
surface of a seed j3otato would, I exjject, show zero similarity. In
these three cases we should find the z calculated for “ similarity ”
to be positive, negative and zero respectively.

V. The Measurement of “ Difference ” by Analysis

OF Variance

W. W. C. makes an estimate not only of the “ similarity ” of the
personalities investigated but also of their “ difference ”. The
method of doing this is explained also in Appendix II of TP 1.

150] Review of Carington' s Work on Trance Personalities 235

It does not appear from such enquiries as I have made that many of
his readers have understood this part of his work. The matter is
difficult in itself, particularly to those who have no previous ac-
quaintance with the mathematical methods used. Its difficulty
has not been reduced by the not infrequent obscurity of W. W. C.’s
exposition and the occurrence of too frequent misprints. I shall
try in this section to clarify the issues involved. It is possible that
I may not succeed and then the criticisms I have directed against
W. W. C.’s obscurity must fall equally on my own head.

One of the most obvious difficulties which readers have met is
that of understanding what is meant by “ difference ” in W. W. C.’s
measurements. In ordinary speech, similarity and difference are
opposites. If we say that two faces are similar, we mean the same
as if we say that they are not different. More exactly (since simi-
larity and difference may exist in any degree) we should say that
the more similar are two faces, the less different they are, and vice
versa. With these ordinarily accepted meanings of similarity and
difference in our minds, we may find ourselves puzzled by some of
the relationships indicated in W. W. C.’s papers. That some pairs
of personahties appear to be both similar and different is not a real
difficulty. Any two things that are not completely similar will be
similar to some extent and different to some extent. What, however,
are we to make of such observations as that of Mrs Leonard (normal)
and Mrs Leonard (prepared) [TP 1, p. 200] who are stated to be
neither similar nor different? Does “ difference ” here mean
“ dissimilarity ” or does it mean something else?

We can only discover exactly what is meant by these terms by
examining how they are measured. I think it may save perplexity
if I indicate here what seems to me to be the true answer to the
above question, which will be more fully justified later. W. W. C.’s
“ difference ” measurement is not a measnrement simply of difference
but of consistency of difference. We can put this m other words
and say that it measures not simply dissimilarity but consistency
of dissimilarity. The quantity z obtained in comparing any two
personalities for difference may be small because the reactions of
the two personalities do not much differ or because, although they
differ, they do not show consistency in their differences on different
occasions. If the D measurement is low only for the first of these
two reasons, the S measurement is hkely to be correspondingly high,
but not if it is lack of consistency that makes the D measurements
low. Lack of self-consistency in either of the personahties compared
will also reduce the S measurement for that comparison. So it may
easily happen that both S measurement and D measurement are

236

Robert H. Thouless

[part

low for tlie comparison l^etween any two personalities. This does
not mean that the personalities com])ared are neither similar nor
dil'ferent, but that any similarity or difference that exist have been
obscrrred by the lack of self-consistency in the measurements.
\V. W. C.’s phrase on the page cited above : “ The two states
may be regarded as quite neutral, so to speak, with respect to each
other ” seems to me, therefore, to be incorrect. The peculiarity
revealed is a peculiarity of the measurements and not of the states
measured.

It is a perpetual source of discouragement to those who try to
read modern investigations in experimental psychology (and in
other biological sciences) that their pages are full of statistical
calculations. Except for those who have been endowed with a
jrerverse taste for mathematical puzzles, these are generally regarded
as ])arts to skip. In great part, there is no reason why they should
not be skipped by most readers. They are merely (as has already
been indicated) necessary prehminaries to a logical step and it is
this logical step in which we are primarily interested. Statistical
methods are used to discover whether a set of figures indicate
anything, and, if they have been honestly and competently per-
formed, we may take their results for granted and go on to ask
what the figures do indicate. Sometimes, however, the statistics and
the logic of an argument are not sufficiently independent for it to be
possible to know what conclusions are indicated unless we have some
rough idea of the preceding statistical steps. That is, I think, the
case in this investigation. It is not necessary that a reader should
understand the method of using the analysis of variance either in
the sense that he sees why successive steps are taken or even in the
sense that he could use it competently himself. It is necessary, how-
ever, if he is to form a reasonable opinion of the work, that he should
see the kind of thing the analysis of variance is getting at.

No very great mental effort is required for this. The basic problem
to be solved by the analysis of variance is a simple one, and the
method of solving it is also fundamentally simple. Although in
analysing a large table, the figures dealt with may be uncomfortably
big, the arithmetical operations themselves are only those of multipli-
cation and addition which are familiar to the average child of ten.

We may illustrate the arithmetic of the method by an example
drawn from a more concrete field than that of W. W. C.’s data.
Let us suppose that a group of seven poultry-keepers differ as to
whose hens lay the most eggs. A sceptical onlooker says that none
of them is a more successful jjoultry-keejrer than another, that
sometimes one and sometimes another is lucky, and gets most eggs

150] Review of Carington'’ s Work on Trance Personalities 237

in any particular period, but that on the average there is no differ-
ence between them. The dispute is referred to an impartial referee.

In order to keep this case as closely parallel as possible to
W. W. C.’s, we shall suppose that the referee is not required to
decide a dispute between the poultry-keepers as to which is the
most successful, but the dispute between all of them and the
sceptical outsider as to whether there is any real difference between
them with respect to their success. In any case, this is the first
question. Unless there is a real difference, there can be no question
of which is best.

The referee l^egins by making a random selection of five rej^re-
sentative hens from each yard and keeps them under his observation
for a fortnight, and records the number of eggs laid by each. He
can write these in a table (as Table I below), in which after the name
of each poultry-keeper he writes the number of eggs laid by each
of his five hens (columns 1-5).

Table I

(1)

(■i)

(3)

(5)

(6)

Totals

(7)

Averages

(8)

Sums of
squares of
deviations
from average

(9)

A dev. 2/4

Brown

2-0

Smith

2-0

Jones

0-5

Scott

3-5

Briggs

6-5

Webb

9-0

Thomas

2-0

Average = 6

Total = 102

Mean = 3-64

These are his data. He must now perform the necessary calcula-
tions to discover what (if any) conclusions he can draw from them.
His first step is the obvious one of findmg the average number of
eggs obtained from the five hens of Brown, from the five of Smith,
and so on. These he writes under the word “ averages ” in the
seventh column.

This column 7 is obviously the important one for the referee. If
he were sufficiently a simpleton, he might be content to notice that
these averages differed amongst themselves and conclude that this
was in itself sufficient evidence that there was a real difference

238

Robert H. Thouless

[part

between the different owners with respect to the laying power of
their hens, and so award the victory to them against the sceptical
outsider. This would, however, obviously be fallacious since the
referee would have failed to take into account the fact that the
different hens of the same owner had laid different numbers of eggs,
and that even if they had been seven sets of five hens drawn from
the same yard, their averages would not have been identical, for
we cannot expect identical averages from samples whose members
differ amongst themselves. Even if there is no real difference
between the samples, their averages will differ by an amount which
depends on how much tlie individual hens of the same owner differ
amongst themselves.

The task of the referee is, therefore, to decide whether these
differences between the average number of eggs per hen obtained
by the different poidtry-keepers are greater than the differences
that would result merely from the fact that each is an average from
a set of numbers differing amongst themselves. Unless they are,
it is obvious that the results of the test provide no evidence whatever
that one poultry-keeper is better or more successful than another.

In order to establish whether or not this is the case, the referee
must have some way of measuring the “ scatter ” {i.e. the degree
of difference) of a set of differing numbers, and also he must know
how much scatter will be caused amongst a set of averages by a
given amount of scatter in the figures from which they have been
calculated.

In order to get a measure of the scatter of any set of figures, he
first finds out how much each of the figures differs from the average
of the set, he squares each of these amounts and adds all the squares
together. He then divides by the number of “ degrees of freedom ”,
i.e. the number of the figures which could be independently varied
while keeping the same mean. This divisor is, therefore, one less
than the number of figures in the set.

For example, the set of averages given in column 7 of Table I have
a mean of 6. Their separate deviations from this mean are : -fl,
0, 0, -2, 0, -f-2, -1. Squared, these become: -fl, 0, 0, -f4, 0,
-f4, +U. The sum of these squares is 10, which divided by 6 (one

* If the referee is using a calculating machine, however, he may prefer to
find the sum of the squares of deviations from the mean by summing the
squares of the figures themselves and subtracting from them the square of
their mean multiplied by their number. This is frequently the actual operation
carried out by W. W. C. This, however, is merely an alternative way of
getting the sum of squares of deviations from the mean and involves no
difference in principle from the above operation. In the present case, this
would give us 262 - (7 x 36) = 10, which is, of course, the same result as above.

150] Review of Carington’ s Work on Trance Personalities 239

less than their total number of 7) is 1-66. This then is a measure
of the scatter of the averages of different owners. It would be zero
if all of these averages were the same ; the more they differ amongst
themselves, the bigger it becomes.

This quantity (when calculated from a distribution of figures for
which it is an appropriate measure of scatter) is called the variance.
Very commonly, the square root of this quantity is calculated and
is called the standard deviation (or a). All that need be remembered
is that the variance, the standard deviation, or any other measure
of scatter, is simply a measure of how much a set of quantities
differ amongst themselves.

The referee now knows the actual scatter of the average scores
of the different poultry-keepers. He must now compare this actual
scatter with the amount of scatter of the averages which would have
resulted from the individual differences between the hens. That is,
he must know how much the averages for different owners would
have differed between themselves even if there had been no real
difference between the laying power of hens of different owners.

If, and only if, the observed variance of the averages (1-66) is
sufficiently greater than this, he will be able to give an affirmative
answer to the question of whether there is a real difference between
the laying power of the hens of different owners.

He begins by measuring, in the same way, the scatter between
the scores of the five hens from any one poultry yard. He does
this separately for each separate jDOultry yard and takes an average
of the seven variances he has obtained. Thus for Brown, the
deviations of the hens from the average (7) for this yard are : -tl,
-fl, -tl, -1, -2. The snm of the squares of these deviations is
l-fl-f-l-l-l-t4 = 8, which divided by 4 (one less than the number
of hens in the yard) is 2, which is therefore written in the last column
of table under the heading Z dev.^/4 (in which Z is the sign for
summation). The variance for each of the other yards is written
below this in the same column. This column is then added up and
divided by 7 and is found to give an average of 3-64. ^ Let us call

^ The referee might also have got this quantity by a different inethod. If
he had added together the squares of all the scores for the 35 sejaarate hens,
he would have got 1,412. By subtracting the square of the general average
(6) multiplied by the total number of 'hens in the experiment, he would have
got (1412 - 36 X 35) = 152. By further subtracting the sum of squares obtained
earlier (from the averages of scores of different owners) multiplied by the
number of hens in the experiment belonging to each owner, he gets
(152 -(10x5) ) = 102 which divided by 28 (i.e. by 7x(5-l) ) gives 3-64 as
above.

That this must give the same result as the simpler procedure above may be
shown by simple algebra. It may seem a laborious and roundabout way of

240

Robert H. Thouless

[part

this quantity the “ mean variance within poultry yards ” in order
to distinguish it from the measure of scatter obtained earlier which
was the variance of the average scores of the different owners (the
variance between the averages for poultry yards).

The simple proposition that the referee uses is that if there were
no real difference between the owners, then the mean variance
within poultry yards would be about equal to the variance of the
average scores of the different owners multiplied by the number
of hens for each owner from which this average score has been
calculated (in this case, five). The variance of the average scores
of the different owners is, as we have seen above, T66. The quantity
required will, therefore, be T66x5 = 8-33. We may call this the
“ total variance between poultry yards ” or simply the “ variance
between poultry yards ”. If these two quantities (the mean variance
within poultry yards and the variance between poultry yards) were
equal or nearly equal, we could conclude that the hens of different
owners differed no more in their power of laying eggs than they
would if all had been drawn at random from the same poultry yard.

Table II

Degrees of
freedom

Sum of
squares

Mean square
(i.e.

variance)

I loge V

Between poultry yards

5x10 = 50

8-33

1-060

Within poultry yards

7 X 4 = 28

102

3-64

0-646

Total

152

4-47

s= -hO-414

If, however, we turn to the figures that we have actually obtained
(see Table II), we find that this is by no means the case. The variance
within poultry yards was only 3-64 while that between poultry
yards was 8-33. Thus the scatter of the mean scores of different
owners is more than twice as great as we should expect it to be if
it were caused only by the differences between different hens. Can
the referee then return an affirmative answer to the question as to
whether there is any real difference between the success of different
poultry-keepers ?

getting the result, but this is only because we are working with an artificially
simplified set of figures which can be easily worked out in our heads. With
the kind of data generally found in jmactice, and if results are obtained by
the use of a calculating machine, the second method is the easier and was,
in fact, used by W. W. C.

150] Review of Carington’ s Work on Trance Personalities 241

Unfortunately, not yet. There is a further possibility that he
must take into consideration. We said earlier that if there were no
real difference between the sldll of the jjoultry-keepers the variances
between and within poultry yards would be equal or nearly equal.
Certainly they are not equal, but are they sufficiently nearly equal
for it to be reasonable to attribute to chance the higher variances
between poultry yards ? This is the next question the referee must
ask himself.

In order to answer it, he must calculate a quantity z which is
half the difference between the Naperian logarithms of the two
variances. The required quantities are given in the last column of
Table II under the heading “ logg V ”, and the required value of
z is seen to be (1-060- -646) = -414.

The referee may or may not understand the reason for taking
this step. All that is necessary is that he should carry it out correctly
and understand the use of the figure he has obtained at the end.
His reason for calculating z is not (as perhaps some of the competitors
imagine) that he wants to go through a mathematical ritual which
will make his results incomprehensible to a layman. It is because he
knows the danger that an apparent indication of the truth of the
hypothesis that he is testing (that there is a real difference between
the success of different poultry-keepers) might occur as an effect
of chance, and, like all others who have to make practical use of
statistics in research work, he has at his elbow a copy of Fisher’s
Statistical Methods for Research. W orkers. His intention is to turn
up the appropriate table in Fisher’s book in order to discover what
is the likelihood that a value of z as large as or larger than the one
observed might have been produced by chance if there had been
no real difference between the poultry-keepers. When he looks up
Fisher’s Table VI, he finds that there is a -05 probability that a z
of -447 might have been produced by chance in these figures. Since
the observed value is rather less than this, and a probability of -05
is the minimum criterion of significance the only reply the referee
can give is : “ I do not know whether there is any real difference
between your skill as poultry-keepers. I think so. If yoi; made
another test with more hens or over a longer period, I might be
able to give you a definite answer.”

The procedure so far described would be correct if (and only if)
the hens from each poultry yard had been selected in no systematic
way. A slightly more complicated method would, however, be
necessary if the experiment had been arranged in a different way,
which also, if it is practicable, is a better way. Let us suppose that
each of the poultry-keepers kept hens of the same five different

242

Robert H. Thouless

[part

l^reecls, and that, to allow for the possibility that some breeds might
be better layers than others, it was arranged that hen 1 of each
poultry-keeper was, let us say, a Plymouth Kock ; No. 2 a Brown
Leghorn ; and so on.

The referee must, in this case, perform the additional operation
of estimating the amount of scatter due to difference of breed.
He adds therefore, under Table I, the total number of eggs laid by
hens of each breeds, and then works out the average for each breed.
The new lines are as follows :

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Totals for each breed

- 37

Averages for each breed

- 5-29

7-14

6-29

6-14

5-14

He then works out the sum of the squares of the deviations of
these means from their general average (of 6) exactly as he did for
determining the variance between the averages of poultry yards.
The sum of squares is, therefore :

( - -71)2 +(M4)2 + (-29)2 +(-14)2 +( - -86)2

which equals 2-65.^ The number of degrees of freedom is four (one
less than the number of different breeds), so the variance of the
averages is 2-65/4. This must be multiplied by 7 (since each average
has been calculated from the score of 7 owners), giving

(7 x2-65)/4= 18-55/4 = 4-64

for the total variance between breeds. The referee can now write
down a new table of analysis of variance (Table HI) showing in the
first line the variance between poultry yards, in the second that
between lireeds, and in the third the variance from all remaining
sources. This third line is obtained by subtracting the sum of
squares between breeds from that obtained earlier within poultry
yards (Table II) and similarly subtracting the nizmber of degrees
of freedom.

The z is then obtained as before by subtracting log^ of the residual
variance (in the third line) from log^ of the variance between poultry
yards. The reason for going through this additional process is that
any difference between the laying power of different breeds will
not affect the scatter between poultry yards (since its effect has
been eliminated by taking one hen of each breed from each poultry
yard). It will, however, increase the scatter within poultry yards,

^ Alternatively, if we arc u.sing a calculating machine we may prefer to
add (5-29)^ -f (7-14)^, etc., and subtract (5x6-) at the end, or to add the
squares of the totals, (37)“ -f (50)^, etc., subtract (5x30“), and divide by 49.
Both of these processes will give the same answer as before, i.e. 2-65.

150] Review of Carington’s Work on Trance Personalities 243

Table III

Degrees

freedom

Sum

squares

Mean square
(i.e.

variance)

4 log« V

Between poultry yards

8-33

1-060

Between breeds

18-55

4-64

Kesidual variance (or error
variance) - . -

83-45

3-48

0-6235

Total - - -

152

4-47

2 = 0-4365

and will, therefore, unless its effect is eliminated, lead us to over-
estimate how much scatter between poultry yards might be due
to chance causes. This might have led the referee, if he had ignored
this factor, to have missed a real difference between the different
poultry yards. He is now comparing the scatter between poultry
yards with what is, in effect, the scatter within poidtry yards after
the effects of difference of breed have been removed.

In this particular case, it does not make much difference. It is
true that the 2 is now somewhat larger (-4365 instead of -414), but
since the number of degrees of freedom in the residual variance
is less than it was before, the size of z with a -05 probability of chance
occurrence is also greater, and is now -460. The 2 obtained is,
therefore, still too small to come up to the minimum criterion of
significance and the referee can still only give the same answer as
before — that he thinks there is a real difference between the poultry
yards but cannot be sure without a more extended investigation.

The reason why there is no appreciable increase in the significance
of 2 in Table III is simply that, in constructing this example, I pur-
posely made the difference between the breeds negligibly small
(in order to keep it closely parallel to W. W. C.’s data). If the
difference between breeds had been large, the significance of the 2
obtained for the difference between poultry yards would have been
much increased. Although he gets no positive advantage by
carrying out the more comphcated process of Table III, the referee
was midoubtedly right to do this, since he knows that there is a
possible cause of scatter in his “ within yards ” variance that is
not present in his “ between yards ” variance, and he cannot know
how much it is affecting his results except by going through the
calculations necessary for its elirni nation.

Let us now tmn from poultry yards to trance personahties. In

244

Robert H. Thouless

[part

W. W. C.’s data, the different words of the word-association test
correspond to the different poultry yards, and the figures on which
the analysis is carried out are not the number of eggs laid by a
particular hen, but the difference between the response of the two
personalities compared. The different occasions on which the test
is administered correspond to the different breeds in our example.
To show the parallelism between the two cases, we can make a
table like Table I, showing W. W. C.’s data. Let us call the two
personalities compared A and B, and the successive words of the
words-association test, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Then can stand for, let
us say, A’s reaction time to word 1, for B’s reaction time to word 1,
A 2 for A’s reaction time to word 2 and so on. The table for working
out W. W. C.’s z for the measurement of what he calls “ Difference ”
is as follows :

Occasions I
W ords

III

1 (Ai-Bd

(Ai

-Bd

(Ai-Bd

(Ai-BJ

(Ai-Bd

2 (A,-B2)

(A2

-Bd

(A2-B2)

(A2 — B2)

(A2-B2)

(A3-B2)

3 (A3-B3)

(A3

-B3)

(A3-B3)

and so on.

Each of these entries

is of course a number — the

difference

between the reaction time of A and the reaction time of B to that
word on that occasion. The scatter between the averages of the
rows is obtained exactly as in our example, and all the remaining
steps are carried out as in the example, the effect of difference of
occasion being eliminated in the same way as in the example we
eliminated the effect of the difference of breed. If a significant
value of z is obtained at the end, this proves that there is a real
tendency for the rows to differ. Now each row is a series of differences
between the personality A and the personality B for a particular
word. If A and B did not tend to react differently to different
words all the (A-B)’s would be about the same and z would be
about zero. It would also be about zero if A and B did react differ-
ently to different words, but did not show any consistency in their
differences on different days, if, for example, A reacted much more
strongly than B to word 1 on the first occasion but much less strongly
than B to the same word on the second occasion, and so on. Thus
both difference between the reactions of A and B and consistency
between these differences are necessary for a significant value of z,
and this measure would be more correctly described as one of
“ consistency of difference ” than simply as one of “ difference
I shall use for this measure W. W. C.’s letter “ D ”, but we may
bear in mind that D stands for “ consistency of difference ” and not
merely for “ difference

160] Review of Carington'’s Work on Trance Personalities 245

There is another measure obtained by the analysis of variance of
which little use is made, and which, I tlinik, offers no special diffi-
culty to understanding. This is covariance which (as used by
W. W. C.) means the extent to which the different occasions of
testing produce an effect of the same kind on the responses of the
personalities compared. The existence of positive covariance
would seem to indicate the same kind of thing as the “ similarity ”
measurements, i.e. a relationship of resemblance between the two
personalities. On the other hand, absence of covariance may
indicate nothing except that neither personality shows variation
of response depending on occasion. “ Covariance ” was rarely
found, so it is of httle importance for our present purpose.

VI. Tests of Significakce

We cannot infer the existence of either “ similarity ” or “ differ-
ence ” merely from the fact that we obtain a positive value of z in
the S and D measurements respectively ; it is also necessary to
show that the z which has been obtained is larger than might have
arisen by chance from figures which do not really indicate the
relationship) in question. The usual minimum criterion for regarding
z as significant is that it shall be larger than a value which might
have arisen by chance once in 20 times. This may be expressed
by saying that P (the probability that in a collection of figures not
showing the relation in question, the observed value of z might
have arisen by chance) is less than -05. This is a minimum criterion
of significance. We shall feel more confidence in the result of any
observation if it satisfies a more severe criterion than this ; we may
prefer, for example, that P should be less than -01.

W. W. C. generally makes the appropriate tests for the significance
of his results and attaches to each of the measurements of S and D
in his tables, the corresponding value of P. It is unfortunate that
the P generally printed by him is not the quantity generally meant
by this letter but one half of it, i.e. it is the likelihood of a quantity
of at least the observed value and of the observed sign arising by the
chances of samphng from a population randomly distributed about
zero. This is erroneous (as W. W. C. now agrees), since “ similarity ”
measurements might vary significantly in either direction, that is,
either a 4- ve or a -ve value might be significant of a real relationship).
Since the requirement that P should not be greater than -05 is the
minimum requirement for significance, it is necessary to remember
that this division has taken place, since otherwise in the “ simi-
larity ” measurements, we shall be accepting as evidence of
relationship, amounts which might have arisen by chance once in

246

Robert H. Thoidess

[part

ten times (instead of once in twenty times). This division by two
woidd, however, only have serious consequences when we were
using the minimum criterion of significance (of P<-05).

In the case of “ difference ” measurements, on the other hand,
no meaning is to be attached to negative z’s. These could only arise
as random deviates, so in estimating the significance of a positive
D, we shoidd be quite justified in asking what was the likelihood
of a value of that sign, and, therefore in dividing by two the value
of P found in a table of normal deviates. Unfortunately, when
W. W. C. divides P by two for one set of measurements and not for
the other, it is for the “ similarity ” measurements that he divides
by two while the “ difference ” measurements remain undivided.

The method by which W. W. C. estimates this quantity P is by
calculating the standard errors of his S and D measurements (by
formulae given in TP 1, pp. 215 and 219 respectively), divkbng
the z by the standard error so obtained, and looking up the P for
the value so obtained in a table of normal deviates. If this ratio
i.e. (measurement)/(standard error), is 2 or over, in any normally
distributed quantity, the value of P is less than -05, so the z can be
taken to be significant. Thus in the comparison between Mrs
Leonard (normal) and Feda in TP 2 (Table II, RN 72), the z’s for
S and I) are - -0400 and +-2073. Ry using the formulae as given
by W. W. C., we find that the standard errors of these are -116 and
•092 respectively. The ratios we want are, therefore, -OdOO/'llG^ -345
for the S measurement and •2073/-092 = 2-25 for the D measurement.
Now turning iqr a table of normal deviates we find that for a ratio
of -345, P=: -73, and for a ratio of 2-25, P is -025. The “ difference ”
measurement for these personalities is, therefore, significant since
it woukl only occur once in forty times by chance if there were no
real “ difference ”, whereas the “ similarity ” measurement is of
a magnitude which woidd be more likely than not to occur by
chance if the real value of z were zero, so we cannot infer from it
that there is any real similarity between Feda and Mrs Leonard.
The values of P given by W. W. C. are, of course, half those given
above, i.e. -37 and <-015.

There are few other points deserving notice in connection with
the use of P as a criterion of significance, since they arise in various
parts of W. W. C.’s work. First, although it is true that from such
a value of z as the S measurement for Feda and Mrs Leonard given
above, in which P is -73, we cannot conclude that there is any
similarity (either positive of negative) between the two personalities
compared, it does not follow that no conclusion whatever can be
drawn from this figure. Since the standard error is -116, we can

150] Review of Garington’’ s Work on Trance Personalities 247

conclude that the true value of z for similarity lies somewhere be-
tween the observed value plus twice the standard error and the
observed value minus twice the standard error. The value obtained,
therefore, for z is definitely inconsistent with the true value of z
being a positive value greater than about -19 or a negative value
beyond about - -27. It frequently happens that what we want to
know is not merely whether an observed value is or is not consistent
with the hypothesis that the true value is zero, but also within
what range the true value is likely to lie. For this reason, I think
the standard error is more informative to the reader than is the
value of P, and that W. W. C.’s tables would be clearer if standard
errors were included.

Secondly, although we cannot conclude from the single S measure-
ment from Feda and Mrs Leonard discussed above that there is
between them any relation of similarity, either positive or negative,
we might be able to draw such a conclusion for a series of such
measurements even though in all of them the z was too small for
significance. Let us suppose, for example, that this was one of a
series of ten measurements of similarity of the same two personali-
ties, all negative, all too small for significance, and all independent
of one another (i.e. none are in any degree causally connected with
any of the others). We could then obviously consider that if the
values were randomly distributed about zero, the probability of all
ten being of the same sign by chance would be 2 x which is
•002, an amount which is undoubtedly significant. So long, therefore,
as proper care is taken, perfectly valid conclusions can be drawn from
combinations of data themselves separately not significant.

Thirdly, we have sometimes to decide what is the significance
of a figure which is itself significant if considered separately but
which is actually the best one of a number of observations of the
same kind. Let us suppose, for example, that we had ten measure-
ments of “ similarity ” for a single pair of personahties and that
the best of these gave a P of -01. If it were legitimate to treat
this separately, we should say that the odds against it occurring
by chance if there were no real similarity would be 100 to 1. This
would be to ignore, however, the actual conditions of the observa-
tion. The probability of such a value occurring at least once in
ten trials is not -01 but -095.1 The odds against this occurring by

^ Because if -01 is the likelihood of the value turning up by chance in one
trial, the likelihood of it not turning uj) by chance in one trial is -99, and the
Idielihood of it tm-ning up at least once in ten trials is, therefore, 1 - (•99)^“>(.=
■095. Generally, if P is the probability for single value, the likelihood of a
value equal to this or greater turning up at least once in n trials is 1 - ( 1 - P)”,
which is approximately wP, if P is small.

248 Robert H. Thouless [pakt

chance are, therefore, only about 10 to 1, which is not enough for
significance.

Before leaving the discussion of significance, it is perhaps worth
while to consider what was wrong with W. W. C.’s now discarded
attempt in TP 3 to combine independent estimates of significance
by a method which resulted in a fantastic overestimate of sig-
nificance.

The beginnings of this mistake are to be found much earlier than
TP 3. In para. 26, in TP 1, W. W. C. considers two observations
which have P’s of -005 and -01 respectively. He wants to discover
the value of P for the two observations taken together, i.e. to
estimate how strong is the evidence of the combined fact of both
observations for the hypothesis under consideration. There is a
recognised and legitimate method of doing this (the negative
logarithm method used later by W. W. C. in TP 3). If we could
treat the two observations in question as independent, and if we
could ignore the fact that they are the selected best from a number
of observed values, then the negative logarithm method would tell
us that the likehhood of two values at least as great as these arising
by the chances of samphng from a population randomly distributed
about zero is -0005(;t;^= 19-9 with four degrees of freedom).

W. W. C., however, starts the argument by stating the meaning
of P erroneously, and it is, I think, in this misstatement that the
origin of the mistake lies. He says : “ The chances of these being
accidental were about 1 in 200 and 1 in 100 respectively.” He then
works out that the combined chance is about 1 in 19,000. There
seems to be nothing wrong with this argument except the premiss.
If the two P’s were the probabilities that the two values were
accidental, then the probability of both being accidental would be
their product (about 1 in 20,000). The combined P would thus be
•00005 which is only one tenth of the value obtained by the proper
method. Since a smaller P indicates a more certain result, this
mistake in method leads to an overestimation of significance, which
in other cases is greater and more serious than it is here.

W. W. C. also sometimes states the meaning of P correctly. In
TP 1, p. 214, for example, he says that P “ represents the chance
of getting a z of this magnitude by accident ”. This is quite correct,
but it is a very different thing from saying that P is the probabihty
that the z in question has been produced by accident (which is what
he says in the passage quoted earlier) a misstatement which produces
its most spectacular effects at the end of TP 3. I do not suppose
that W. W. C. is the first to be guilty of the misstatement ; it could
probably be paralleled in many accounts of statistical methods.

160] Review of Carington^s WorTc on Trance Personalities 249

It is his misfortune that he has been clear-sighted enough to drive
the misstatement to its logical conclusion and to derive from it a
method of combining P’s from different observations which would
be a correct one if P were the likehhood of a given z having been
produced by chance.

When we say that a particular value of z is significant because P
is -02, we mean that if the real value of z {i.e. the mean we should
get if we could take an infinite sample of such z’s) were zero, then
the odds would be 60 to 1 against a value as large as the one ob-
served having arisen by chance. This gives us a reasonable convic-
tion that the observed z did not arise in this way. Let us be clear
that this is not the same thing as saying that the odds are 50 to 1
against the observed z having arisen by chance.

We may suppose that I am waiting on the outskirts of Cambridge
for a walker whom I have never seen before but who I know has
slept the previous night at St. Ives (12 miles away). At 10 a.m.
I see someone approaching along the road with a rucksack on his
back. Taking into consideration the distance from St. Ives and
the probable time of starting, I do not, however, bother to ask
the man whether he is the one I am waiting for since I consider
that if he had started from St. Ives that morning the odds would
be (let us say) 100 to 1 against my expected friend having yet got
so far. At 11.30, I see another man approaching on foot. It still
seems rather unhkely that my friend would have got so far in such
a short time, but now I estimate that the odds are only 3 to 1
against him having got so far {i.e. P = -25) so it seems reasonable
to consider that it is sufficiently likely that the man is the one I am
waiting for, for it to be worth while to ask him.

The above P is exactly analogous to the P calculated in an estimate
of significance. Here it is the probability that if my friend had
started from St. Ives that morning he could have got at least as
far as this point by this time. In testing significance, P is the
probability that if the true value of the qi:antity observed were
zero, a deviation at least as big as the observed value might have
occurred by the chances of sampling. The only essential difference
between the two situations is that in testing significance we are
generally interested in trying to establish not that the observed
walker might have come from St. Ives but that there is no reasonable
likelihood that he did.

The erroneous use of P which I am here criticising would be
paralleled in our illustration by supposing that the judgment that
there is a probability of -25 that if my friend had started from St.
Ives this morning he would have got as far as this, was equivalent

250

Robert H. Thouless

[part

to the quite different judgment that there is a prol:>ability of -26
that tlie observed walker is my expected friend. Clearly this is a
different judgment and any opinion on this j^robability would have
to be founded on quite different data. The observed walker might
have come from Huntingdon, from Godmanchester, from Fen
Stanton or from some intermediate village. Other things being
equal it is clearly more likely that any particular walker came from
some less distant village than that he came from St. Ives. In fact
we could not even form an estimate of the likelihood that it was
from St. Ives that he came without knowing a great deal more
about populations, relative distances, etc. We can only be sure
that it is likely to be a figure very different from the -25 calculated
as the probability that, starting from St. Ives, he would have got
at least as far as this.

We may take an even simpler illustration. A man is arrested
and charged with murder. He pleads “ not guilty ”. The judge
may consider that if he were guilty the odds woidd be 50 to 1 that
he would say he was not guilty. This is plainly not the same as
supposing that the fact that he pleads “ not guilty ” shows that the
odds are 50 to 1 that he is really guilty.

I have dealt with this mistake at some length because it is an
insidious one, and because, if this line of reasoning were admitted,
all kinds of erroneous conclusions could be drawn from these papers
and from most other statistical studies. I certainly tlo not wish
it to be imagined that this criticism undermines the whole of
W. W. C.’s work. It means simply that the arguments of TP 1,
para. 20, of TP 2, p. 355, and of TP 3, paras. 32 and 33 must be
rejectetl. None of these is of great importance, and the discarding
of them leaves the remainder of the three pajjers intact.

VII. The Measurement of Individuality or
Self-Consistency

We have already seen (in Section V) that W. W. C.’s measure
of I) is not sinqjly a measure of “ difference ” but of “ consistency
of difference ”. Although the way in which consistency affects the
S measurement is less obvious, I think it is equally true to say that
this too is not sinqily a measure of “ similarity ” but to some extent
also of “ consistency of similarity ”. Let us remind ourselves of
what S is. It is a measure of the degree to which the average
responses to different words of two subjects were correlated {i.e. if
one subject showed to a particular word a response which was large
compared with his own average, the other subject also tended to

150] Review of Carington' s Work on Trance Personalities 251

show to the same word a large response compared with his average).
I think it shoidd be clear that if any personality was inconsistent
on different occasions, showing a large response to one word on one
occasion, but to quite different words on other occasions, there could
be little that was characteristic of him either in his responses on
any one occasion or in the average, which will simply be a blurred
resultant of many different patterns of response. Nor can we
reasonably expect either any single set of resjwnses or the average
of them to show close correlation with the pattern of response of
any other personahty. This, I think, becomes obvious if we reflect
that if a second personality showed close “ similarity ” to any one
set of the inconsistent personalities responses, he could not also to
others. We cannot, in fact, expect to And that a personality is
more “ similar ” to another personality than he is to himself.

This tendency of low self-consistency to produce low correlations
is well known to educational psychologists who use the word
“ attenuation ” to describe this effect.

We have the situation then that a low D measurement may mean
small difference between the personalities compared or it may mean
low self-consistency in one or both ; similarly a low S measurement
may mean httle similarity or it may mean low self-consistency.
Actually, we are interested only in similarity and difference, and
from the point of view of this enquiry, lack of self-consistency is
simply a factor whose importance for us lies in the fact that it may
obscure real relationships of similarity and difference.

We cannot interpret low S and D measurements, then, unless
we have some way of determining the degree of self-consistency
of the personalities compared. This is given to us in the measure-
ment called “ individuality ” or “ I ” by W. W. C. I should have
preferred that this should have been called (as W. W. C. also suggests)
“ self-consistency ”.

This is a quantity obtained in the same way as the “ difference ”
measurement from a table in which the items are simply the re-
sponses of one personality to the different words on different occa-
sions. It may seem paradoxical that the method which was pre-
viously used to measure a difference between personalities is here
used to measure the resemblance of a personality to himself. This,
however, is an obvious consequence of the nature of the numerical
items in the two cases. What was measured in the previous case
was the extent to which the difference between the responses of
two personalities on different occasions was consistently greater
for some words and less for others ; what is measured in this case
is the extent to which the responses of one personahty on different

252

Robert H. Thouless

[part

occasions are consistently greater for some words than for others.
We said that the “ D ” measurement indicated the “ consistency
of difference ” between two personalities ; in the same way, we
may say that the “I” measurement indicates the “ consistency of
individuality ” of one personality. It measures how far this indi-
vidual (to quote W. W. C.) “ always gives a longer time to goat,
say, tlian to pig, and to pig than to cat, during the period covered
by the tests ”.

It will be seen from what has been said earlier that it is of some
practical importance to have a measure of self consistency and I
think that much more practical use might be made of it than W. W. C.
has made. Let us supjiose, for example, that we turn to the tables
at the end of TP 2 in which a series of “ S ” and “ D ” measurements
is given for different pairs of personalities in three experiments.
If we ask ourselves which personalities resemble each other and
which differ from each other, we shall be bewildered. The same pair
of personalities seem to be differently related in different applications
of the test, and many seem to have the meaningless relationship
of being neither similar nor different.

It is only when we begin to take into account the “ I ” measure-
ments that order begins to appear in the chaos. We can take, for
example, the comparisons between Mrs Garrett and Uvani (reaction
times) in Table I. For three of these (RN 30, 32 and 34), “ I ”
measurements are given (RN 9 and 12, 10 and 13 and 11 and 14
respectively). The “ similarity ” measurements present no diffi-
culty. All three are insignificantly small, so we may conclude that
the test shows no appreciable resemblance between the two person-
alities. The “ D ” measurements are more difficult. The first is
•31 (fairly large and easily significant) the second is -05 (insignifi-
cantly small) and the third is -48 (even larger than the first). Are
we to conclude that the two personahties do or do not differ? We
shall jirobably all guess that they really do differ, but this is not a
very satisfactory conclusion unless we have some ground for re-
jecting the middle value other than the fact that it does not agree
with the other two. When we examine the “ I ” measurements
for Mrs Garrett and Uvani we find that they are satisfactorily large
for the first and third comparison (G = -25 and U = -30 for the first,
and G = -55, U = -48 for the third). For the second comparisons,
however, I is small for Mrs Garrett (-15) and practically zero for
Uvani ( - -07).

We may make a more general examination of how far this appear-
ance of personalities being neither “ similar ” nor “ different ” is
a result of low self-consistencies in the personahties compared. I

150] Review of Car ington’s Work on Trance Personalities 253

have divided the “ S ” and “ D ” measurements in Table II (TP2)
into two classes ; those in which both of the personalities compared
have “ I ” measurements of -2 or over, and those in which one or
both “ I ” measurements fall below that value. The first class is
thus composed of personalities with good self-consistency, the other
has one or both personalities with bad self-consistency. The com-
parisons in both classes are then grouped as showing significant
similarity and no difference (S -t-Do), significant difference and no
similarity (SoD-f), and so on. The results for the whole of
AV. AA". C.’s Table II are as follows : ^

Table IV

(1)

S+Do

(2)

SoD + or
S-D +

(3)

So Do

(4)

S+D +

Totals

Comparisons between
personalities with
“ good ” self-consis-
tency - - -

Other comparisons

There are two striking features of this table. First, the much
greater proportion of comparisons showing significant difference
in those calculated from personalities with good self-consistency
(21 out of 24 as against 10 out of 34), suggesting that a principal
effect of lack of self-consistency is to obscure differences that really
exist. Secondly, there is a complete disappearance in the compari-
sons with good “ self-consistency ” of the anomalous indication
that two personalities are neither “ similar ” nor “ different ”.

This confirms the opinion previously suggested that these cases
do not indicate a relationship of “ neutrality ” between the person-
ahties who neither resemble each other nor differ from each other,
but simply that lack of self-consistency prevents us from measuring
any real similarity that exists. Our “ S ” and “ D ” measurements
are quite correct in their indications that the two personalities show
neither “ consistent similarity ” nor “ consistent difference ”, and
only become misleading if we equate these with “ similarity ” and
“ difference ”.

There may, at first sight, appear to be inconsistency in the indi-
cations of column 4 where the same personalities appear to be both

1 When this table was made, I did not realise that all W. W. C.’s P’s had been
divided by 2, so I took as my criterion of significance that P (W. W. C.’s
value) should be -05 or over.

254

Robert H. Thouless

[part

similar and different. This, however, is altogether reasonable. If
two personalities are not completely similar, they will be more or
less different. So it is to be expected that a measure of similarity
together with a measure of difference will be found in all comparisons,
with a tendency for the difference to be greater if the similarity is
less and vice versa. It may generally happen that only “ S ” or
only “ D ” will be significant, but there is no reason why both
should not be.

It would be interesting also to enquire whether, if only data of
good self-consistency were used, inconsistency of indications between
different experiments would be reduced or disappear. This probably
would hapj)en, but there are not enough comparisons of the same
pair of personalities who have both been self-consistent in more
than one experiment for a test to be possible.

The suggestion I wish to make here, is that if we require “ S ”
and “ D ” measurements as indications of the relationships of simi-
larity and difference between j^ersonalities, they should be calculated
from test results which show a reasonably high self-consistency or
“ I ” measurement, because only then will “ S ” and “ D ” indicate
adequately similarity and difference respectively. I think the “ I ”
measurements might also l:)e used to determine the satisfactoriness
of different methods of scoring. Many of the results given in TP 1
become very differeiit when rescored for TP 2. I have no doubt
that the later methods of scoring were better and that the results
indicated by them are more reliable than the earlier ones. I suggest,
however, that this superiority might best be shown by finding that
the improved methods of scoring gave increased “ I ” scores when
they were used.

What has here been said is not meant as a criticism of the work
of W. W. C. It is, on the contrary, a suggestion that his results
are much more informative and internally consistent than they
appear at first sight. There is another way in which it might be
possible to deal with the difficulties I have here discussed. I have
explored only the way in which the results could be improved by
eliminating those calculated from personalities showing low “ I ”
measurements. Such a procedure would involve sacrificing a lot
of the data. It would be better, if possible, to calculate indices of
“ S ” and “ D ” which, in some way removed the effect of low
self-consistency. This would be equivalent to the practice in educa-
tional psychology of “ correcting for attenuation ”. Whether this
could be done and how it could be done, I must leave to the statis-
ticians. If it were practicable, it would plainly be better than
jettisoning all the data calculated from personalities with low “ I ”,

150] Revieiv oj Caringlon' s Work on Trance Perso7ialities 255

but until it can be done, I think the sacrifice of even two-thirds
of the data would be worth while, if it left (as it would) much more
clear indications in what remained.

VIII. Countersimilarity of Controls

A secondary object of Mr Whately Carington’s research was to
throw light on the psychology of the trance condition. Outstand-
ingly the most important of these is his study of the relationship
of the controls to the medium and to other personalities in the same
manifold.

In measuring a correlation, as in W. W. C.’s measurements, we
may find a positive correlation indicating similarity of the two
things measured, no correlation at all indicating absence of similarity,
or a negative correlation indicating a relationship which W. W. C.
calls “ countersimilarity ”. Similarity is the relationship between
two faces resembhng each other in shape ; countersimilarity may
be expressed as the relationship between a human face and a hollow
cast of a face. Countersimilarity {i.e. what is indicated by a sig-
nificant negative z) is, as W. W. C. truly points out (TP 2, p. 333),
no less evidence of some causal connection between the reactions
of the two personalities compared than is a positive similarity.

In TP 2, pp. 329 ff., an argument is developed that controls show
the relationship of countersimilarity to other personalities in the
psychological manifold to which they belong whereas communi-
cators do not. From this fact is drawn the important conclusion
that controls are parts of the medium’s personality split off by
repression and not autonomous personalities.

Let us begin by making a general survey of the evidence on which
this conclusion is based. First, that of Feda the control of Mrs
Leonard. There is no clear evidence of countersimilarity in the
Feda “ similarity ” measurements published in TP 1 (pp. 200 ff.).
These results are recomputed for TP 2 by a better method and
exanfination of the more extensive observations published in
Table II of TP 2, suggests at once that there is a tendency for
Feda to show negative z’s for similarity in the reaction time
results although not in those for reproduction. It is, in fact,
entirelj' from the reaction time results that AV. W. C.’s argument
is drawn.

The fact that Feda’s countersimilarity does not appear in the
material published in TP 1 need not bother us. The recomputation
for TP 2 was by a better method (not, of course, devised to demon-
strate countersimilarity, but for other reasons) and it may easily

256

Robert H. Thouless

[PAKT

happen that a genuine relationship is obscured by an inferior method
of scoringd

Nor need we worry about the fact that the relationship does not
appear in “ reproduction ” results. If a relationship is significantly
shown by any one set of results, then that relationship really exists
and the mere fact that other sets of results do not show it is not, in
itself, reason for supposing that it does not exist. Actually there
are two possible reasons for the failure of the reproduction results
to show the countersimilarity shown by the reaction time results.
First, it may be, as W. W. C. suggests elsewhere (TP 2, p. 345),
that the RPN results are measuring something different, and,
secondly, it might be due to the general untrustworthiness of the
indications of RPN data (see Section III of this paper).

Further examination of Feda’s negative similarities (in Table II,
TP 2) shows that, with one exception (RN 116) they are insigni-
ficantly small. Although this means that we cannot draw any con-
clusion as to the reality of countersimilarity from any one of these
insignificant values taken separately, it does not necessarily mean that
we cannot do so by taking them together. As has already been
pointed out (in Section VI), a number of independent indications
separately insignificant may, as a whole, give a significant indication.

Let us now turn to W. W. C.’s arguments in TP 2. Sections 12
to 17 are more or less preliminary. It is in sections 18 If. that the
important part of the demonstration is to be found. I think that
W. W. C. in his use of statistical analysis in these sections lays
himself open to charges of over-optimism and of insufficient use of
statistical methods as a critical check on this tendency. These also
seem to me to be the main faults in his use of statistics where he
went wrong at the end of TP 3. I think it is unfortunate here that
a tendency to over-state his case may obscure the fact that there
is quite a strong case anyway.

W. W. C. begins by pointing out (TP 2, p. 334) that in the reaction
time “ similarities ”, Feda gives negative values proportionately
more often than do other personalities. This certainly is the case
as is seen in the following table from this page :

It is, nevertheless, rather awkward that Feda and Mrs Leonard (prepared)
show a significant positive similarity on p. 201 of TP 1 (z= -t- -2740, P = -018)
which becomes insignificant in Table II of TP 2 (z= -I-T471, P = -20). It is
less easy to understand how an inferior method of computation can make a
really insignificant indication of relationship into a significant one.

Positive
- 2
- 11

Negative

Feda comparisons
Other comparisons

150] Review of Carington's Work on Trance Personalities 257

It is obvious that in this table, the Feda comparisons show the
greater proportion of negative “ similarities As always, we must
ask whether this indication is significant, i.e. whether the dispro-
portion is so great as to render it unreasonable to suppose that it
might be due to chance. W. W. C. does this by the standard method
of the text-books for this type of problem (in which a quantity
called is calculated) and shows that it is unquestionably significant.

Undoubtedly it is, but we must also ask ; what exactly does it
signify? Plainly it does not signify what is here required for the
argument — that Feda has a real tendency to be countersimilar to
other personalities. Negative values of z might arise in two ways,
either from a real countersimilarity of Feda to other personalities,
or by the fact that she had zero real similarity to other personalities
so that negative values were as likely as positive. In fact, Feda’s

S ’ values do tend to be much lower than the others so the mere
fact that she gives more negative values is consistent with the second
hypothesis and does not necessitate any real countersimilarity.

It may be objected, however, that this is proved by the fact that
Feda gives more negative than positive values. This certainly is
an argument in favour of countersimilarity, but it is a different
argument. The important question is not whether she shows more
negative values than the other personalities but whether she shows
more than are to be expected on the hypothesis that her z values
are normally distributed about zero. The table should be :

+ ve - ve

Observed Feda comparisons - - - - 2 8

Expected Feda comparisons on hypothesis of
zero similarity ------5 5

The inequahty is not significant but this may be because the total
number of F comparisons is small. Let us, therefore, add together
the Feda and the Uvani comparisons and treat in the same way.

ATe get :

+ ve -ve

Observed comparisons involving controls - 3 12

Expected observed comparisons involving con-
trols on hypothesis of zero similarity - - 71

for significance (with Yates's correction for
small numbers), we find that is 4-26 which makes P between -02
and -05. This is sufficient for significance.

This would be valid evidence for a real tendency to counter-
similarity if we were justified in treating all the comparisons as
independent. I do not think we are. If they are not independent.

258

Robert H. Thouless

[part

the significance of the results will be much less than the above
calculation would lead us to suppose. Since questions of what items
of evidence can be regarded as independent occur several times in
these papers, it may be worth while to consider shortly the problem
of what constitutes independent evidence.

Let us suppose that we toss a penny fifteen times and that tails
turn up twelve times, the above calculation would tell us how
unlikely it is that this event would happen by chance. Suppose,
however, that (still wishing to discover whether the coin is biassed)
we recorded as separate events the fact that the figure of Britannia
was uppermost, that the trident was uppermost and that the date
was uppermost. In five tosses we found that each of these three
events happened four times and failed to happen once. If we added
these together and said that our hypothesis of bias had been con-
firmed twelve times out of fifteen, we should be guilty of an obvious
fallacy. Actually only five tests have been made (not fifteen) and the
results have been four of one kind and one of the other (a dispro-
portion which is not significant since it could very easily have
happened by chance). The fallacy woizld be that of treating as
independent, items of evidence that are not independent.

In such a case as this, where the interdependence of the events
tested is complete, no one is likely to make a mistake. There is
another more difficult case where the occurrence of one event only
makes more probable the occurrence of another and does not make
it certain. We may suppose that we are tossing several mutilated
pennies some of which have a date but no trident, others have a
trident and no date, while others have both trident and date. Then
the turning up of the trident makes the turning up of a date more
probable but not certain, and vice versa. We still should be in error
if we treated the turning up of the trident and of the date as inde-
pendent events, for the turning up of the trident a large number of
times by chance would make more likely the turning up of the date.
The significance of any observed concurrence of these events would
be greatly exaggerated if we treated them as independent. If,
moreover, we were in the position of not knowing how many of our
coins were mutilated (and, therefore, how intimately these events
were causally connected) we should be unable to estimate how much
the significance of the results had been overestimated by treating
them as independent.

It seems to me that the different “ S ” comparisons of the same
personality in any one series of experiments are not independent
for much the same reason that the turning up of the trident and the
date in the last example are not independent. It must be remembered

150] Review of Carington’’ s Work on Traiice Personalities 259

that all of these “ S ” comparisons are made with the same set of
Feda measurements. It may happen by chance that in any single
experiment, Feda produced a set of reaction times countersimilar
to some other personality. This set will then, to some extent, tend
to be countersimilar to any third personality positively similar to
the first one (just as a hollow cast countersimilar to W. W. C.’s face
will also tend to be countersimilar to mine). All the -ve Feda com-
parisons in the first Thomas experiment are truly independent pieces
of evidence that this particular set of Feda measurements shows a
tendency to “ countersimilarity ” but not that Feda measurements
in general show countersimilarity. For that proposition they are,
taken together, one piece of evidence. Another piece of evidence
is provided by the results of the second Thomas experiment and
another by the Irving experiment. In exactly the same way these
three experiments are three independent pieces of evidence that
Feda shows countersimilarity but are only one piece of evidence
for the proposition that controls in general show countersimilarity.

Nor do I think that it is justifiable to treat (as W. W. C. does)
reaction time results and reproduction results as independent. In
general these are correlated (as W. W. C. has himself shown) and,
therefore, a countersimilarity that appears in one will tend also to
appear as a dependent fact in the other.

I do not, of course, know how much our previous estimate of
significance would be alfected by taking into account these inter-
dependences of the Feda comparisons. There was not a very large
margin of significance to begin with, and, since we know that the
significance must have been overestimated to an unknown extent,
it seems safer to reject altogether the evidence for the counter-
similarity of Feda and Uvani got by combining the values separately
insignificant, and to enquire whether we can get satisfactory evidence
from values which are large enough to be significant.

For Feda, there is only one such value, the “ similarity ” of Feda
and Leonard (prepared) in the Irving experiment (No. 116 of Table
II, TP 2). Here z is - -3310, with a standard error of T, so the
value of P is less than -001. This value of z is unquestionably
significant. It is very improbable that it arose as a chance deviation
from zero. It is true that this is only one of many z’s calculated
for Feda and the chance of such a value arising at least once in
several tests is larger than that of it occurring in a single trial.
Even, however, if we multiply by 10 to get the chance of such a
value occurring at least once in the ten reaction time comparisons
of Feda, P would still be less than -01 and would remain significant.
We may note also that the fact that we have treated as independent

260

Robert H, Thouless

[PABT

comparisons which really are not independent, will, in this case,
cause us to underestimate the significance, so P must be considerably
less than -01 and undoubtedly significant.

We must now consider how this indication fits in with other
indications in the same table. We may probably disregard the fact
that the reproduction test on the same material makes Feda and
Mrs Leonard (prepared) significantly similar. If, of course, two
apparently rehable lines of evidence were to tell us, one that Feda
and Leonard (prepared) are similar and the other that they are
countersimilar, it would be impossible to draw any conclusion on
this point ; we could only conclude that there was something wrong
with the evidence. We have, however, seen earlier that there may
well be sufficient reason for accepting the testimony of the “ reaction
time ” date without expecting that of the “ reproduction ” date to
be consistent with it.

This, however, leaves the same difficulty at a different point.
The RT similarity between Feda and Leonard (prepared) is insigni-
ficant in both Thomas experiments, insignificantly +ve in one
(2= -f -1471), and insignificantly -ve in the other (2=:-T478).
This does not merely mean that these experiments do not confirm
the conclusion of the Irving experiment on this matter ; they are
definitely inconsistent with it. As has already been pointed out,
the fact that a value of z is insignificantly small does not mean only
that we cannot conclude that there is any relationship between the
items compared ; it also means that this relationship, if it exists,
cannot exceed a certain positive value. The testimony of the two
Thomas experiments is that the countersimilarity of Feda and
Leonard (prepared), if it exists, cannot be of the size indicated by
the Irving experiment, no less definitely than the Irving experiment
indicates that it cannot be zero. There is a clash of testimony
which must leave us uncertain which to accept unless we can show
reason why one line of evidence is of less value than the other.

I think there is such a reason. If we look at the “ Individuahty ”
or self-consistency measurements for Leonard (prepared) in the
Thomas experiments, we see that both are negative. It is obviously
improbable that we shall find any relationship with another set of
figures, from a set of figures which is a mean of results which are
negatively self-consistent with one another. A true counter-
similarity between Feda and Leonard (prepared) might therefore
have been obscured by the negative self-consistency of Leonard
(prepared) in these experiments. The Irving experiment, in this
respect, is in a somewhat (but not very much) better position. The
“ I ” measurement for Leonard prepared is -f *0306. This is positive

150] Review of Carington' s Work on Trance Personalities 261

but very small. It is indeed surprising that such large measures
of S and of D as are found in RN 116 could have been obtained from
data with so little self-consistency. Since, however, the low self-
consistency would have tended to make these both nearer to zero,
it is no reason for rejecting their indications as it was in the twm
Thomas experiments.

There appears then to be sufficient evidence that in reaction time
measurements, Feda and Mrs Leonard (prepared) are countersimilar.
The evidence here rests on one observation (that of the Irving
experiment) and depends on the vahdity of the reasons I have
suggested for rejecting opposing evidence from other experiments.
This conclusion is confirmed by the observation made in TP 3 that
Feda is again countersimilar to Mrs Leonard (p. 19d and Table II).
The P here is -05 which taken by itself is significant but imimpressive,
but taken in conjunction with the results in TP 2 is very strong
evidence of the reality of the relation of countersimilarity. In the
reproduction results, Feda is again not countersimilar to Mrs
Leonard as she was not in the Irving experiment of TP 2.

The evidence from Mrs Garrett and her control Uvani (Table I,
TP 2), mostly calculated from Mr Hereward Carrington’s data, is of
the same order and points in the same direction. There are five P.G.R.
measurements of similarity between IVIrs Garrett (G) and Uvani (U)
and five reaction time ones. Of these, three PGR and four RT
similarities are - ve. One PGR negative “ S ” is significant (No. 19,
2= -•3079, P = -002), one RT is nearly significant (No. 31, z=
-•3083, P = 06). No positive “S” measurements between G and
U are significant. The evidence here seems to me to be at least as
good as that derived from Mrs Leonard and Feda.

On the whole, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is a
gemfine relationship of countersimilarity between Feda and Mrs
Leonard and between Uvani and Mrs Garrett. It is a pity that this
important conclusion could not have been established in a more
convincing way from data freer from inconsistencies. Even as it
stands, however, I think the evidence is good enough for reasonably
strong conviction. Also it seems reasonable to accept W. W. C.’s
explanation of this fact that these controls are not independent
personalities but are dissociated parts of the medium’s personahty
(or secondary personalities of the medium).^

1 There is also an argument in TP 3, p. 198, against the autonomy of con-
trols drawn from the fact that there is a very strong resemblance between
the controls Feda and Silver, which seems more likely to be explained by the
fact that the two mediums have split off similar secondaries than to a real
resemblance between a Hindu girl and a Red Indian warrior.

262

Robert H. Thouless

[part

Whether or not this relationship holds generally for all mediums
and their controls could not, of course, be decided without investi-
gating a greater number. W. W. C. seems to treat this result as
following from the countersimilarity of medium and control in these
two cases. The fact of two controls being countersimilar to the
mediums cannot, however, be proof that all are. The fact that
Rudi Schneider and his control Olga showed, on the contrary, a
strong similarity (TP 1, pp. 187 If.) need not be considered an ex-
ception to the rule of countersimilarity since it is apparent that there
were other grounds for not regarding Olga as a control. There is,
however, a real exception in Mrs Sharplin and her control Silver
(TP 3, p. 194 and Table II RN 3023) who show no significant simi-
larity or countersimilarity. If, in the future, it is shown that
countersimilarity is a general rule amongst controls, a satisfactory
explanation of this exception may be found. So long, however, as
the generality of the countersimilarity of controls is in question.
Silver must be treated as an exception weakening the evidence for
this conclusion. Whether or not the relationship of countersimilarity
is a general characteristic of controls (or of controls of this type)
can only be decided by further research on larger numbers. In view
of the interest of this question, it is to be hoped that this further
research will be carried out.

I do not think it is possible to admit any logical force to the
argument on p. 348 of TP 2 that such communicators as John,
Etta and Dora are not secondary personalities because they do
not show countersimilarity. Even if countersimilarity were estab-
lished as a general property of controls, it would not therefore be
shown to be a general property of all secondary personalities. We
cannot argue that because two monkeys are found to have tails
(or more precisely because two out of three animals claimed as
monkeys have tails) that therefore any animal without a tail cannot
be a monkey.

There is another unfortunate argument on this page. Against
the suggestion that communicators are histrionic poses, W. W. C.
says that they do not show the association of reaction time and
reproduction which seems to be the hall mark of a single and
undivided personality and is shown by the two Gatty poses.
W. W. C. has failed to notice that in one of the Gatty poses (Gatty,
Oxford) on p. 344, the association between reaction time and
reproduction is strongly negative. Even if the Gatty figures are a
misprint (as seems likely), the statement that communicators do
not show association between RT and RPN is based on two only
out of three communicators (the third does show such association).

150] Review of Carington' s Work on Trance Personalities 263

Obviously the number is far too small to support the general con-
clusion that communicators do not show association between RT
and RPN. Moreover, the test of significance on p. 345 of TP 2 is
erroneous because W. W. C. has treated separate tests of the same
communicator as independent pieces of evidence, and also because
he has used a method of calculation which is generally agreed to be
invalid if the number of cases expected in any class is less than
five.

The conclusions that I think may safely be drawn are these :
there is evidence of sufficient but not of coercive strength that the
controls Feda and Uvani are negatively correlated to the mediums
and to other personalities of the same manifold ; this may be most
easily explained by supposing that they are dissociated parts of
the medium’s personality (for which there is other evidence) ;
whether this relationship of countersimilarity is true for all controls
is a problem for future research ; there is no evidence of this rela-
tionship of countersimilarity being found amongst any of the trance
personalities that are not controls.

IX. Intermedium Work

In the last section we saw that a very strong presumption had
been established in TP 2 as to certain of the controls. They appeared
not to be autonomous personalities but secondary personalities of
the medium. This, I think, is the most important positive conclusion
from Mr Whately Carington’s research. The problem of the status
of communicators was, at this stage, not going on so well. If we
look at the relationships of similarity and difference listed in Table II
of TP 2, we see an impressive array of figures but little indication
of what relationships they are pointing to amongst the personalities
compared. It is certainly true that, once we admit the force of
the argument at the beginning of TP 2, we can no longer hope to
. be able to settle the problem of the autonomy of communicators
by any mere examination of coefficients of “ similarity ” and
“ difference ”. AVe might, I think, still have hoped that these
would give us strong indications of how the personalities in a mani-
fold were related. It does not appear that they do. Even if they
had done so, it would be necessary, however, to look in a different
direction for final proof. It is with the devising and carrying out
of better methods for investigating the problem of the autonomy
of communicators that TP 2, pt. IV, and TP 3 are mainly concerned.

The first venture in this direction in TP 3 need not delay us since
the author discarded the method immediately afterwards. The

264

Robert H. Thouless

[PABT

method here employed is to obtain readings for the word-association
experiment from the communicators John and Etta through
another medium (Mrs Sharplin) and to compare these with the
reactions of the same communicators when communicating through
Mrs Leonard. If the communicators could be proved to be identical
with the same communicator communicating through another
medium, their autonomy would be proved. This intermedium
comparison of communicating personalities who are ostensibly the
same has remained the basic method of all the later part of W. W. C.’s
work although the method of making the comparison has been
much improved since the first crude attempts of TP 2.

The distinctive feature of the now discarded method of TP 2 is
that (realising that a simple similarity between, let us say, John
communicating through Mrs Leonard and through Mrs Sharplin
nnght be due to similarity of these two mediums) the attempt was
made to get rid of the effect of the similarity of the mediums by
the method of “ partial correlation ”, •i.e. to get a measure of how
much John (through Leonard) resembled John (through Sharphn)
when the effect of the similarity of the mediums was eliminated.

W. W. C. thought, at the time of publishing TP 2, that the indica-
tions of autonomy of John and Etta were positive but he was wisely
suspicious of an indication obtained so easily and pubhshed the
results with reserve, suggesting that it might prove that there was a
flaw in the argument.

In actual fact the final similarities shown on p. 355 of TP 2 are
not significant either separately or together. W. W. C. was only
misled into thinking they were significant by repeating the mistake
(already discussed in Section VI) of multiplying together their
separate probabilities in order to get their combined probabilities,
a method which (as we have seen) enormously overestimates the
significance. Here he gets a combined P of -0014 (instead of the
true value of -1). The matter is not important since W. W. C. had
realised by the time TP 3 was published that the results would have
proved nothing about the autonomy of communicators if they had
been significant.

The method was rejected at the beginning of TP 3 as a result
of Professor Fisher’s criticism that the partial correlation method
was not to be relied on when the eliminated variable was itself (as
here) subject to error. I think that there is a more fundamental
objection than this to the method as used in TP 2. If the partial
correlation method had been applicable to these data and if its results
had been significant they would have shown only that Jg resembled
Jl and that Eg resembled E^^ more than could be accounted for

150] Review of Carmgton's Work on Trance Personalities 265

by the resemblance of the mediums. But, as we have already seen,
any two sets of responses to the word-association test may resemble
one another more or less whether or not they are produced by the
same personality, and this possible cause of similarity is not elimi-
nated by the partial correlation method. It would be necessary
also to show that resembled Jg and that resembled Eg sig-
nificantly more than resembled Eg and than Jg resembled E^.^
Unless this were done, the partial correlation method could not have
proved the autonomy of J and E ; if it were done, it seems to me
that the partial correlation method would be unnecessary since the
same pair of mediums would have been used in all four comparisons.

The next method devised by . W. C. is not open to this objection.
It is, in fact, a method very close to that suggested above but is
neater since coefficients of “ similarity ” are not calculated but the
required comparison is calculated by the method of analysis of
variance direct from the table of word-association responses. It
is, I think, fundamentally sound, and its devising is a feat very
creditable to Mr Whately Carington. That much of the super-
structure of TP 3 is worthless does not alter the fact of the essential
soundness of the foundations.

If we agree that mere resemblance, hovrever great, cannot be
proof of identity, I think there should be no difficulty in seeing
what kind of evidence would prove identity. Perhaps we can state
it most simply as follows : we must prove not merely that a given
communicator is like himself but that he is more hke himself than
he would be if he were not himself. More exactly, we must be able
to show whether or not (communicator X communicating
through medium A) is more hke Xg than he would be if the two X s
were not the same personality in the two cases. W. M. C.’s third
article is devoted to discovering whether or not this can be demon-
strated.

If the problem as above stated is borne in mind, the general
nature of this part of the enquiry should be clear even though the
details may remain obscure. Let us begin by considering an analo-
gous case in which no spirits enter. Let us suppose that I received
two years ago a letter from someone who knew me in the past and
now needs my help. Let us further suppose that he is an illiterate
man who has not composed the letter himself, but has given a
secretary the general idea of what he wanted to wnite and has left

^ Here and hereafter, I am rising Jg as a convenient contraction for John
communicating through Mrs Sharplin, Jj^ for John communicating through
Mrs Leonard, and Eg and E^^ similarly for Etta communicating respectively
through the same two mediums.

266

Robert H. Thouless

[part

her the task of expressing it in her own words. Let us suppose
further that I received yesterday a letter ostensibly from the same
man but composed by a different secretary. I have some reason
for suspecting that the writer of the second letter is an impostor,
and is not really the same person as the writer of two years ago.
How am I to establish whether or not the two letters have identical
originators ?

Naturally, the two letters will not be identical ; they may not
even be closely similar. Each of them has many individual pecu-
liarities which reflect the personality of the secretary and not of
the originator. On the other hand, they are not likely to be wholly
dissimilar. Any two human beings in similar circumstances may
give somewhat similar instructions to the person who is writing
a letter for them, and any two secretaries writing letters under
similar circumstances may be expected to compose somewhat
similar letters. With this amount of data, indeed, the problem will
be insoluble. Even though I can measure how much the two letters
resemble each other, I cannot draw any conclusion as to the identity
or non-identity of the originators, since I do not know how much
the two letters might differ although the originator of both was
one and the same person, nor do I know how much the two letters
might be expected to resemble each other although the originators
of them were different.

If, however, I were so fortunate as to have, written by the same
two secretaries, two more letters written in similar circumstances
but not written by the alleged individual of whose self-identity
I am in doubt, I should have the data for the solution of my problem.
In order that the problem may be as closely as possible analogous
to that of W. W. C.’s research, we may suppose that the second
letter of each secretary was written at the same time as the first,
and that I am as doubtful about the common authorship of this
pair of letters as I am about the common authorship of the other
pair.

Let us call the two secretaries A and B, and the two alleged
authors (who may prove to be four), X and Y. I want to know
whether is the same individual as X3 and whether is the
same as Yg. Comparison of X^ with Yg and of Xg with Y^ will
tell me both how much the style of the two secretaries has in common
and how much two letters written by different individuals in the
same circumstances have in common. This knowledge will enable
me to allow both for the factor of the resemblance of secretaries
and for the common human factor. If now I find that the letter
of X^ resembles that of Xg strikingly more than the pair of com-

150] Bevie^v of Caringtoii’ s Work on Trance Personalities 267

parisons I made previously, I may conclude that and are
one and the same person ; similarly for and Yg.

I have so far supposed that the problem of the authorship of the
letters was decided qualitatively, by my mere impression of the
degree of resemblance of the different pairs of letters. Such im-
pressions, however, are unreliable, and, as a scientist, I may prefer
to get some quantitative measure of the characters of the letters.
I might get this by counting some characteristic features, the number
of unusual grammatical constructions, the proportion of compound
to simple sentences, etc. I should then have a set of numbers to
compare and need rely no longer on my own impressions. Then I
should be driven to judge the question by a method which was
equivalent to that used by W. W. C. or was identically the same.

Essentially the method is quite general in its nature. The above
example shows that it could be applied to problems outside the
special field of psychical research. It seems to me that it might
be used, for example, in a purely agricultural problem, to test, let
us say, whether two bags of different kinds of artificial manure
bought at one shop were identical in composition with two bags
ostensibly of the same kind as the first pair but bought at a different
shop. It is an advantage of a cpiantitative statistical enquiry that
the method of proving the self-identity of bags of manure is the
same as that of proving the self-identity of spirits. The criteria
of vahdity are independent of the emotional importance to the
enquirer of the subject of research.

There is one obvious limitation to the validity of this test. Let
us suppose that in our analogy of the letter writers, one claimed to
be a man I had once employed as a gardener who was asking me
for a loan, while the other claimed to be a woman asking me for a
subscription for the R.S.P.C.A. There might well be a great deal
of resemblance between X^ and Xg and between Y,^ and Yg that
did not exist between X^ and Yg or between Xg and Y^ even though
neither the two X’s nor the two Y’s were really the same person.
They would be playing the same role and would therefore tend to
resemble each other in superficial respects. Both X’s might talk
about apple-trees and both Y’s about homeless dogs. For that
reason it would be necessary to make the test for self-identity on
some characteristics such as granmiatical constructions, complexity
of sentences, which were not affected by the role.

Similarly, W. W. C.’s test would not be valid if applied to similar
superficial characteristics of responses which might be characteristic
of any medium (or secondary personality of a medium) playing the
part of a clergyman or of a young woman. The actual words used

268

Robert H. Thouless

[part

as responses might, for examj^le, show theological interests when J
(a clergyman) was communicating through two mediums, even if
there were no real J behind the communications. It is very unlikely
that any similar spurious indication of self-identity would vitiate
the test when reaction times are used because the medium (or trance
personality of the medium) would have no theory as to what would
be the characteristic reaction times of a clergyman or even indeed
any knowledge of the fact that reaction times are affected by
dominant emotional interests.

It is not particularly easy to explain simply the method employed
in TP 3. Essentially it is a form of the analysis of variance which
has already been described in Section V. Each occasion is, however,
treated separately. The rows are, as before, formed of responses
each to a particular word in the word association list. There are
four columns of the responses of John through Mrs Leonard, of
Etta through Mrs Leonard, of John through Mrs Sharplin and of
Etta through Mrs Sharplin. The table for the analysis of variance
is, therefore, as below :

Word 1 -

Word 2 - a.

Word 3 - «3

etc.

El 'Tg Eg

h (^1 ^1

b-2 02

The entries a^, bj, c^, etc., are the usual quantitative expressions
of the word-association responses made by the personality entered
at the head of the column to the particular word of that row (thus
in the reaction time data they are the times in seconds that the
personality has taken to react). As before, the problem is to discover
how much of the scatter of these responses is contributed by different
factors. In this case, the factor we are interested in is the respect
in which J responses differ from E responses. The actual arith-
metical operations are explained very clearly by W. W. C. in TP 3,
pp. 202-210. Those who wish to understand the method cannot do
better than work out for themselves the examples he gives.

We can, I think, best express in words what each z is by saying
that it is a measure of similarity (as was the earlier S ” measure-
ment). Briefly, it measures the extent to which each ostensible
communicator is more similar to himself (through another medium)
than to the other communicator. More exactly, it shows how far
the similarity between J^ and J^ and between E^ and Eg is greater
than that between Jj^ and Eg and between Jg and E^. If all four
comparisons : between J^ and Jg, between E^ and Eg, between
Jl and Eg, and between E^ and Jg showed differences which were

150] Review of Carington' s Work on Trance Personalities 269

about the same, z would be zero or only insignificantly different
from zero. Nothing would appear to belong specifically to J or to
E. If, however, the first two of these comparisons showed consist-
ently less difference than the last two, z would be positive, and this
would indicate that ostensibly the same communicator, even com-
municating through two different mediums, showed a degree of
resemblance that could only be explained if he really was the same
communicator.

A separate z is worked out for each occasion and for each block
of twenty-five words. Thus in the comparison between the Leonard
and Sharplin material of 1935, where there are five occasions and
four blocks of twenty-five words, there are twenty z’s for the reaction
time data and twenty for the reproduction material. All the z’s of
all comparisons are given in Table V at the end of TP 3.

The procednre has, so far, been statistically correct, and, as an
attempt to devise a satisfactory method of investigating the problem,
it deserves high praise. Two defects of the data have already been
mentioned in Section III. These are : the inclusion of two sets
of observations from the same medium obtained at different times,
and the use of “ reproduction ” material which may not be sufficient-
ly nearly normally distributed to give reliable results. These,
however, are not defects of the method.

The result to be expected from this experiment, if John and Etta
communicating through Mrs Leonard are identifiably the same
John and Etta as communicate through Mrs Sharplin, is that the
z’s obtained at the end should be significantly positive. If responses
ostensibly from the same communicator through different mediums
have no more in common than have responses from different
communicators, then the z’s will be randomly distributed about
zero. No reasonable meaning can, I think, be attached to negative
z’s. They would suggest that responses ostensibly from the same
communicator through different mediums have less in common
than they would have if they were from different communicators.
This does not seem reasonable on any hypothesis.

The question of the autonomy of communicators is, therefore,
to be decided by finding out whether the z’s tend to be significantly
positive or whether, on the other hand, they tend to be randomly
distributed about zero. If the first alternative is true, the autonomy
of communicators is indicated ; if the second, then the experiment
provides no evidence for the autonomy of communicators.

Which of these two expectations is fulfilled is decisively shown
in para. 25. The mean value of the z’s is H--035 with standard error
of -041. The likelihood of such a deviation from zero occurring

270

Robert H. Thouless

[part

by chance in a set of values randomly distributed about zero is
•4, that is, it is likely to happen nearly as often as not in a series of
tests. There is no evidence here that there is any tendency of the
z’s to differ from zero.

It is true that AV. W. C. mentions that one of the sets of “ repro-
duction ” z’s has a mean which differs significantly from zero. This
is the mean of the twenty z’s obtained by the comparison of communi-
cations through Mrs Leonard and those through Mrs Sharplin in
1935. The mean value is -f-218 with standard error -091. If this
were taken as an isolated value, P wmuld be -017 making it easily
significant. It is, actually, the selected best of six means, and the
probability of at least one value as high as this occurring as a
random deviate from zero in six trials is about -1. This is not enough
for significance, but if there were no grounds for doubting the
reliability of RPN results (as there were none when AV. AV. C.
published this paper), it would make us hesitate to accept the
otherwise clear negative indication of the results. Since, how^ever,
there is grave reason for doubting the rehability of RPN evidence
(see Section III) and since the RT results for the corresponding
comparison are completely insignificant ( - -003 with S.E. -091),
there seems no reason for trying to draw any conclusion from this
one unexpectedly high mean.

It says much for the honesty of the investigator that he presents
so clearly such strong evidence against the hypothesis which, at
the time of writing, he believed that his investigation supported.
Unfortunately, he did not stop at this point but went on to an
ingenious but mistaken attempt to wrest from the data a significance
which they do not possess. I do not want to dwell too long on the
errors of TP 3 (sections 27 onw^ards) since these are now recognised
by AV. AV. C. It is necessary, however, I think, to indicate them
shortly to prevent others from being misled by them.

AVe need not trouble much about the problem dealt with in
para. 27 (the excess of - ve z’s in the comparison between the two
sets of data olitained from Mrs Leonard in different years), since it
is not relevant to the hypothesis under consideration. Significantly
negative z’s could (as we have seen) only mean that responses
ostensibly from the same communicator have less in common than
they would have if they were from different coinmunicators. This
is an unintelligible result in any case, and is certainly no easier
to explain on the hypothesis that the John and the Etta of 1933
are the same personalities respectively as the John and the Etta
of 1935, than on the hypothesis that they are not.

In para. 28, AV. AV. C. reconsiders the means of the z’s obtained

150] Review of Carington’s Work on Trance Personalities 271

in his six sets of comparisons. These, certainly, are data relevant
to the hypothesis under investigation, but they have already been
treated as a whole and appeared then to be randomly distributed.
They still remain random (with the possible exception dealt with
above) when spht up. W. W. C. obtains a combined P of T5,
which he says is suggestive but not coercive. Actually the P is
somewhat overestimated by this method since it treats +ve and
-ve deviations as equally providing support for the hypothesis
tested, whereas, as we have seen, only +ve deviations are evi-
dence for the autonomy of personalities. A P of -15 is not,
however, even suggestive. A total irregularity that could occur
once in seven times by the chances of sampling is quite consistent
with the hypothesis that all the means are random deviates from
zero.

In para. 29, W. W. C. calculates the “ slopes ” of the six sets of
values, i.e. the rate of change of the mean for all occasions from
block to block. Some of these are fairly large and the total irre-
gularity would appear to be just significant if we treated the
“ reaction time ” and the “ reprodixction ” results as independent
(which does not appear to be justifiable). Also in assessing the
significance of these values, it must be borne in mind that they are
only one of many characteristics of the data that might have
been calculated {e.g. the means of the blocks, the slopes showing
the rate of change with occasion, etc.) and the likelihood that at
least one of a set of characteristics will show a given deviation
from expectation is considerably greater than would be its likehhood
if it were the one appropriate characteristic to measure for the
testing of the hypothesis in question. If the slopes were significant,
it does not seem that they would indicate the autonomy of John
and Etta and I find it difficult to see what they would indicate.

This is also true of the correlation between slopes and means
worked out in para. 30 which seems to indicate a tendency for
“ whatever is going on to get more so as the sitting proceeds ”.
The correlation is -78 which nearly satisfies the criterion for signi-
ficance.^ If another experiment confirmed this correlation, it
would indicate something curious about the data. Again it is
difficult to say what, but there seems no reason for attributing it
to the autonomy of communicators, particularly since the relation-
ship seems to hold for negative means (which contradict this hypo-
thesis) as well as for positive ones (which are in its favour).

1 At first sight, the correlation seems to be much less than this but that is
because there is an obvious misprint in the list of means on p. 215. A minus
sign has been omitted before the last mean.

272

Robert H. Thouless

[part

In paras. 32 and 33, a mistaken metliod of coml^ining the pro-
babilities from the above four lines of evidence is developed (giving
for the combined P’s the startling value of -000013). This has
already been listed as one of W. W. C.’s recantations and no more
need be said about it. He also, however, uses the orthodox “ nega-
tive logarithm ” method (p. 220) and gets an overall probability
of -01 in support of the thesis that communicators are autonomous.
This would be a perfectly correct procedure if all four pieces of
evidence were independent (which they are not completely) and
if they were all evidence for the hypothesis in question (which we
have seen they are not). Since these necessary conditions are not
fulfilled, the conclusion here indicated must also be rejected.

This may seem to be somewhat destructive criticism. Any
discussion of this part of TP 3 must be so. I do not, however,
wish it to be concluded that nothing can be established from this
work. Having cleared away this unfortunate superstructure of
fallacious argument, there remain the facts of paragraph 25 in
which it is seen that the z’s are randomly distributed as they would
be if there were nothing peculiar to the alleged same communicators
when communicating through different mediums. In other words,
the results of the experiment are not merely that it fails to show
that the communicators are autonomous personalities, but that it
conforms remarkably well to the hypothesis that they are not. It
cannot, of course, prove that the alleged John and Etta communi-
cating through one medium are not the same personalities as John
and Etta communicating through a different medium but it does
show that if there is anything pecuhar to John and to Etta, the
word-association test fails to reveal this fact.

The imperfections of the data mentioned above do not give a
valid reason, I think, for rejecting this negative conclusion although
they would provide reason for being suspicious of a positive one.
The inclusion of two sets of data from Mrs Leonard might have
produced (but, in fact, did not produce) spurious indications of
autonomy, but they would not have masked genuine indications
of autonomy from the other comparisons. The same is true of the
inclusion of “ reproduction ” material. I do not know whether the
unsuitability of this material for the mathematical treatment which
was used would have made the z’s obtained from it too high or too
low. If they were too high, they might have produced spurious
indications of autonomy, but if they were too low they would not
have masked genuine indications from the “ reaction time ” data.
It would certainly be a good thing to have confirmation of the result
by more extensive material from which data of the kind criticised

150] Review of Carington’s Work on Trance Personalities 273

has been excluded, but the evidence as it stands is good and its
indications are unquestionably negative.

They are negative in the sense that they show that the experiment
does not give evidence in favour of the autonomy of communicators.
How far can they be claimed as evidence that there are no autono-
mous communicators? Obviously no failure to detect autonomous
communicators could be final evidence that there were no autono-
mous communicators to detect, but it might provide indications
in that direction of greater or lesser evidential value. How great is
the evidential value of such indications must obviously depend
on how likely it is that the test would reveal the autonomy of
communicators if they had been autonomous. This depends on
whether the word-association test (under the condition of com-
munication through a medium) obtains results that are really
characteristic of the personality under investigation, and, if it does,
on how sensitive is the method of distinguishing personalities used
in the inter-medium work.

It seems that the sensitivity of the method could be tested
without much difficulty in some such way as that of carrying out
the same procedure with the undoubtedly separate personalities
of living subjects, and discovering whether their separateness is
shown by significantly positive z’s. I understand that, in a future
publication by W. W. C., some such test of sensitivity will be
made.

Even, however, if the procedure is shown to give a sufficiently
sensitive test of the autonomy of personalities tested directly by
the word-association test, it might be the case that the necessity
for communicators to respond through a medium prevented the
responses from adequately characterising the communicator. This
possibility appears to be more difficult to investigate, and unless
it can in some way be eliminated, it seems that W. W. C.’s results
may provide no evidence for autonomous communicators but also
no very strong evidence against autonomous communicators.

At the time of publication of TP 3, its author supposed that its
evidence supported the hypothesis that communicators were
autonomous personalities. His conclusion was that, on the question
of an extraneous influence corresponding to John and Etta, “ If
nothing more than a few million pounds or the fate of a couple of
nations were involved, I should feel disposed to declare flatly that
the operation of some such extraneous influence had been estab-
lished ” (WC 3, p. 222). But in view of the importance of the issue,
he preferred not to commit himself. Nevertheless, it seems a fair
inference from these words, that he regarded the conclusion as

274 Robert H. Thouless [part

being jjretty well established (presumably he would not lightly
sacrifice either a few million pounds or a couple of nations).

This conclusion, I understand, he is no longer prepared to defend.
If, however, the evidence of the later sections of TP 3 had been
(as W. W. C. supposed it was) reliable, independent and relevant to
the hypothesis in question, the conclusion would have been the
one indicated by the evidence. Although W. W. C. was certainly
wrong on this point, it does not mean that the enquiry was not
worth while or that nothing has been achieved by it. The original
question was worth asking, and the methods might have given a
positive answer to it. In any case, negative conclusions are no
less worth while to scientific progress than positive ones although
they are less satisfactory to those who have done the work for them.
It would have been more exciting for Mr Whately Carington (and
for us all) if he had made the first quantitative demonstration of
the reality of spirit communications through mediums. It is,
however, no less creditable to him that he has devised a satisfactory
technique for testing this problem although the result of the test
appears so far to be entirely negative.

X. Conclusions

We saw at the beginning that Mr Whately Carington set out to
solve three main problems. First, to devise a quantitative method
of experimenting on trance personalities. Secondly, to use this
method to find out whether it could provide evidence for or against
the autonomy of spirit communicators. Thirdly, to find out as
much as possible about the psychology of the trance state.

The first aim has been achieved. In TP 3 and more satisfactorily
in later work still unpublished, a method has been devised which is
practicable and fundamentally sound. Its general principles could
obviously be used with other material than the reactions obtained
by the word-association test. It could, in fact, be used with any
test whose results could be expressed quantitatively and whose
numerical results were distributed approximately normally. The
only obvious limitation of its validity would then be that it must
not be used on material (such as the actual words given as responses
in the word-association tests) in which similarities between the
same communicator through different mediums might be the results
of the mediums’ knowledge of salient features of the alleged com-
municator’s character and interests.

The second aim seems also to have been achieved. The results
obtained are those which would lie expected if there were no real

150] Review of Carington’ s Work on Trance Personalities 275

communicating spirits who communicated sometimes through one
medium and sometimes through another. No negative conclusion
can be final, and it is reasonable for those who believe in the
autonomy of communicators to try other tests by the same method.
If these are rigidly applied and rigidly evaluated and are found to
give positive results, the existence of autonomous communicators
will be proved. If these tests too give negative results, the conclu-
sion that there are no autonomous communicators in seances will
become a very probable one.

Finally, there is the third object of throwing light on the psycho-
logy of trance states. There are many indications, of which I think
the most important is the countersimilarity of controls indicating
the possibility that these are secondary personalities produced by
repression. Most of the evidence on the psychology of trance states
seems, however, to require reconsideration and amplification.

NOTE ON PROFESSOR THOULESS’ PAPER

It was Samuel Butler, I think, who observed that “ Life is like playing
the violin in public, and learning the mstrument as one goes on
This aphorism, which is only too true in so many contexts, I have
found acutely aj^plicable throughout the work discussed by Professor
Thouless. Certainly I have had to “ learn the instrument ” as I went
along, and it is evident from his most valuable and conscientious
criticism that I have made very many mistakes of all orders of magni-
tude. Still, it is something to feel, as I think I am justified in doing,
that I have shown the instrument to be worth playing and even,
perhaps, to have produced “ . . . something remotely resembling an
air ”, however far short of my original hopes the ultimate results
may have fallen. In so far as I may unwittingly have misled many of
my readers, I can only express my deep regret, and plead with Dr
Johnson “ Ignorance, Madam, sheer ignorance ”.

Broadly speaking, I accejjt nearly aU of Professor Thouless’ criti-
cisms at their face value, my differences, if any, being on minor points
of wording rather than essentials. There are, however, a few points
on which comment seems worth while :

(1) The credit for devising the basic method used in TP 3 should,
as there stated, be given to Mr W. L. Stevens, of the Galton Labora-
tory, and not to me.

(2) Whereas it is true that the reproduction data, being necessarily
1 or 0, cannot legitimately be treated by analysis of variance, for the
reasons given, this does not imjdy that they are valueless. They may
be dealt with by appropriate methods of the “ contmgency ” type
and accordingly represent valuable data worth the collecting. I hope
to study them anew whenever opportunity offers, although I greatly
doubt whether they wdll yield results appreciably different from those
given by reaction times.

(3) It is true that I used the “ finger print ” analogy in TP 1 and
that this suffers from the defect mentioned by Professor Thouless.
But this was not because I did not reahse the importance of the point
in question, as is shown by my comparison with Bertillon measure-
ments which has not this defect. It was a concession, apjiarently
misguided, to the fact that hundreds of people have heard of finger
prmts for one who is familiar with the earlier (Bertillon) technique.

276

PART 150] Note on Professor Thouless' Paper

277

(4) As regards the important question of the counter-similarity of
controls, there seems not much doubt — even after Professor Thouless
has done his righteous worst — that this is a genuine phenomenon, to
be interpreted as I have maintamed. I hope, however, to be able to
re-examine this question with greater particularity, working the
results by separate occasions and applying corrections to blocks of
25 words instead of to the sitting as a whole. The fact that the
RPN data, though correlated with RT, do not in general indicate
countersimilarity, is jirobably due to their inajjpropriate treatment by
analysis of variance.

(5) I venture to thhik that Professor Thouless is definitely in error
when he says (p. 269) that “ no reasonable meaning can be attached
to negative z’s Actually, it is not difficult to show that a negative z
is hkely to result if a certain proportion of J and E times are inter-
changed ; that is to say, if, fairly often, we actually get an E time
when we think we are getting a J, and vice versa.

But this is a topic to be discussed in a later communication, in which
I hope to deal with an extension and revision of the inter-medium
R.T. work. I may say at once, however, lest future hopes be aroused,
that at present there seems no prospect of reversing Professor Thouless’
conclusion, which must, I thinlc, be unequivocally accepted, so far as
the data at present available are concerned.

In conclusion, I must express my most sincere thanks to Professor
Thouless, not only for the great amount of trouble he has taken, but
for the singular combination of ruthlessness and sympathy he has
brought to bear on the work.

The above, I should like to emphasise, is no empty form of words ;
for, although I have yet to hear that fruit-trees enjoy the process of
pruning, all that matters is that their fruit should ultimately be sound.

w. w. c.

>, vn

'll!

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Society for Psychical Research

PART 151

SUPERNORMAL FACULTY
AND THE STRUCTURE OF THE MIND

BEING

THE FREDERIC W. H. MYERS LECTURE, 1937
{delivered October 27, 1937)

By C. a. Mace, M.A.

It is a paradox that should dehght the Hegehan philosopher and the
Freudian psychologist alike that the defences we erect within
ourselves against prejudice and superstition themselves tend so to
encrust and petrify the mind that it becomes increasingly resistant
to novel truths. No one has had better reason to be conscious of
this paradox than the student of psychical research in his efforts to
invoke co-operation from orthodox working scientists in relevant
and allied fields of investigation.

The distinguished exceptions to this generalization are in large
measure standing witnesses to the greatness of the achievements of
Frederic Myers whose scholarly and balanced presentation of the
facts first impressed the more discerning and continues progressively
to undermine the resistances in the body of working scientists as a
whole. So much progress has been made that now it is hardly
possible for the working psychologist, at any rate, to proceed with
his proper task without taking serious cognisance of the evidence
for the supernormal aspects of the personahty of man.

Accordingly, I propose to take this opportunity to jiay my
tribute to the memory of Myers not by presuming to speak as one
who has himself graduated in the more specialized and technical
fields of psychical research, but by speaking as one such ordinary
working psychologist who, though concerned in general with the

279

280

Supernormal Faculty

[part

normal functions of the normal mind, finds it necessary to adjust his
concepts to the facts which psychical research has brought to light.

It serves to raise important issues straight away if the question
be bluntly put : How far does the professional student of the normal
mind accept the findings of psychical research? Does he believe
that telepathy occurs? Does he accept the evidence for clair-
voyance, for survival, for any of the alleged material phenomena?
If he does, why do none of these important matters find a j^lace in
the textbooks of his science? If not, where precisely do his objections
and his dilficulties lie?

Speaking for myself, but trusting that my answer is not eccen-
tric or unrepresentative, what I should begin by saying is this :

Strictly, the attitude of belief is one that jfiays a very much smaller
part in scientific thought than is apt to be supposed — a fact which
often makes the scientist appear more evasive and non-committal
than in fact he is. If we take any important current scientific
hypothesis and ask the scientist whether he accepts or believes it, he
will almost certainly say that he does not. He will say ; From the
nature of the case, from the fact that it is only an hypothesis, I do
not believe it. All I can say, as a scientist, is that I seriously entertain
it. I am prepared to treat it with the respect due to any hypothesis
put forward by a fellow scientist whose intellectual powers and whose
integrity I acknowledge, and I am prejrared to devote my time to
conducting investigations which will contribute to its verification,
its modification or rejection. This is the essential form in which a
scientific hypothesis obtains recognition. And this, I take it, is the
kind of recognition that Myers wished to see accorded to the hypo-
theses of the field in which he was a pioneer.

To say all this, however, is to give only a part of the answer to
the question I have raised. Let us consider in a little more detail
the problem of tele])athy which in this respect provides a represen-
tative, relatively simple, but undoubtedly critical case. Is telepathy
an established fact? The answer depends upon an analysis of the
empirical and the hypothetical elements in the assertion that a
])rocess of telepathic communication has occurred. Clearly, all that
is observationally verified in the most direct way in any particular
case is a certain detailed parallehsm of events. Sujipose that to one
jjerson. A, a complex series of events occurs — he is involved, for
exam])le, in an unusual kind of accident. Simultaneously, or at
approximately the same time, a detailed rej)resentation of this
sequence of events is present to the mind of B, another person
situated at some considerable distance from A. Each event, or
complex of events, may bo empirically verified. A himself, or a wit-

and the Structure of the Mind

281

151]

ness, can verify the details of the accident ; B can verify the presence
of the representation to his own mind. In accordance with prin-
ciples of evidence which we find satisfactory in almost every other
connection each of us can know that this parallehsm of events has
occurred. Admittedly there are difiicidties here but they are diffi-
culties of an uninteresting kind. In principle, the evidence may be
such that an “ incredible ” occurrence may have to be believed ;
and anyone who refuses to accept this evidence, whether he be
scientist or not, will thereby remove himself from court to enjoy the
imenviable reputation for caution which we accord to those who
choose to question the historical existence of Napoleon.

Granting the parallehsm of events, what more do we need?
Obviously something more. The assertion that the parallelism is
the parallelism of communication contains imphcations which can
be verified only in ways much more complicated than those by
which we establish particular facts. At the very least the assertion
embraces two negative propositions : (i) that the parallelism was
not a chance coincidence ; (ii) that it did not arise in consequence
of any one of a certain set of causal processes which we might specify
by enumeration.

These two assertions are connected. To deny coincidence is to
assert causal connection. The two possibilities are alternative and
disjunctive. It cannot be both and it cannot be neither. If it is not
a coincidence the connection must be causal, there is no third
alternative. The second assertion is of the kind that the formal
logician would describe as a compound negative proposition. The
parallehsm does not arise from sight, hearing or smell, nor from
memory, nor from inference, nor from any other of the commonly
recognised processes through which ideas come to be present to a
mind.

Here, then, is an obvious source of some of the residual doubts
with which the accumulating evidence for telepathy continues to be
received. To establish the contention that a parallelism of events
arises from a supernormal mode of communication we have to
establish a causal proposition ; and we have further to establish a
complex combination of negations.

In principle, two lines of procedure are open. In the first we do
not formulate any specific theory concerning the nature or the
modus operandi of the causal factors involved, but try to prove
each of the constituent negative propositions one by one. The
alternative procedure is the logically more direct but practically
no less prodigious undertaking of attempting to discover the positive
character of the process.

282

Supernormal Faculty

[part

To the former of these procedures belong the now highly techni-
cal applications of statistical methods. In these we have an instru-
ment which enables us to prove that a parallelism must be in some
way causal without knowing ivhat the causal connection is. It is
not in the least to disparage Avork along these lines to say that it is
subject to inherent limitations, and that it cannot in itself provide
all the information Ave require. To say this is merely to repeat what
statisticians themselves have emphasised and what those who have
used these methods AA’ould readily endorse.

The progress of science, generally, depends upon the preservation
of the appropriate balance betAveen empirical observation and theor-
etical construction. To tliis the science of the supernormal can be
no exception. And here again our thoughts must turn to Myers in
whose monumental work Ave find a combination of factual record
and cautious construction strikingly contrasted with pedestrian
empiricism on the one hand and with undisciplined speculation on
the other.

That the case for telepathy is not more widely admitted is, I think,
in some measure a consequence of the fact that in recent years the
construction of hypotheses has not kept pace Avith the accumulation
of facts. What avc need, I would suggest, is not so much quite new
hypotheses but hypotheses Avhich are richer in detail, hypotheses
Ave can test, and refute, then modify and test again.

It is my hope that such hypotheses will be found (and here,
{jerhaps, I must ask you to make alloAAmnces for the predilections
of one whose experience is restricted in the main to the study of the
normal) not by starting ah initio with radically novel conceptions of
the human mind, but by the piece-meal and progressive modification
of concejAts which have proved their utility in more familiar fields.
A psychologist who is conscious of AAdiat he is about Avill always have
it in the back of his mind that sooner or later revolutionary hypo-
theses may well be required, but these are not the hypotheses AAuth
which to begin. For this reason, I propose in what follows to try
to make more explicit some of the more ordinary concepts with
Avhich the orthodox psychologist tries to interpret the facts which
come las Avay, so that Ave may proceed to ask AAFere more precisely
new formulations are likely to be required.

Piecing together relevant data draAvn from many sources we are
lefl to picture the constitution of man as an immensely complex
mechanism the salient characteristic of Avhich is the capacity to
respond to stimulation. As such it is a mechanism consisting of
tAvo broadly contrasted parts — a mechanism of reception and a
mechanism of response.

151]

and the Structure of the Mind

283

As a receptive apparatus man consists of a set of organs each of
which is selectively sensitive to its own appropriate type of electro-
magnetic, chemical or grosser physical mode of stimulation ; and as
a responsive apparatus he consists of a set of organs used to produce
effects upon things in his environment.

In the cycle of response to stimulation we have presented for
analysis a causal chain the main links in which can be broadly
enumerated as follows :

(i) First we have an initiating event — the remote stimulus, such as
the vibrations in a bell or a change in the temperature of a filament,
(ii) There is then an external transmissive process through which
corresponding changes — sound, hght, heat, etc. — are propagated
through a more or less homogeneous medium. This constitutes the
immediate or proximate stimulus, (iii) Then occurs a change in the
appropriate receptor organ of the body as the transmitted impulse
impinges upon it. (iv) There follows an internal transmissive
receptive process wherein another type of change is propagated
through the more or less homogeneous conductive medium of the
afferent nerves, (v) The receptive process, physiologically con-
ceived, is completed by a central process which can in part be
located in certain definite areas of the sensory cortex to which the
afferent paths proceed, (vi) There follows a further central change
which initiates the second half of the process — a central responsive
process which, too, can in part be located in another definite area of
the brain, (vii) A second internal transmissive process ensues — the
internal transmissive responsive process through the conductive
medium of the efferent nerves, (viii) Completing the organic
sequence there occurs a set of changes in specialized effector organs
which either directly produce effects upon the external environment
or initiate further changes in the organism itself. In the former case
we can normally distinguish two final phases in the total cycle, viz.,
(ix) A second external transmissive process through an appropriate
conductive external medium, and (x) a terminal change in some
remote object. This object may, of course, be another organism ;
in which case the terminal phases of one cycle are the initiating
phases in a second cycle of the same general type.

This is one of the simplest cases, but of course it is by no means the
only type of process exemplified in the normal interaction between
the individual and his environment.

The problems which arise in the attempt to elucidate in detail the
course of events here summarily described are of extremely varied
and extremely difficult kinds. The solutions of these problems
depend not only upon specialized physical, biochemical, physiological

284

Supernormal Faculty

[part

and psychological research but also upon the clarification of funda-
mental philosophical and logical issues. I shall restrict myself,
however, in this discussion to those points which are most germane
to the problem of supernormal faculty.

To begin with we may note the extraordinary lack of homogeneity
in the concepts required even to describe this sequence of events.
Three antitheses in particular call for scrutiny.

First there is the antithesis between the strictly physical and the
strictly psychological concepts. It is a matter of pretty general
agreement that the constitution of physical objects and the nature of
physical processes can be described in terms of a very fimited number
of fundamental concepts, and it is further agreed that in terms of
these concepts we can not describe the states of consciousness or
experiences of individuals. My preliminary description of the pro-
cess of response to stimulation has been given mainly in physical
terms, or in terms which could in principle be reduced to the funda-
mental concepts of physics. But it is clear that in any adequate
account of this cycle of events we should have to make statements
concerning the experiences of the individual who responds to stimu-
lation, and such statements would introduce the distinctive con-
cepts of psychology.

Next, and not less important, is the antithesis between the con-
cepts employed in a strictly physical description and those which
enter into the plain language of everyday usage. It is, I think,
important to stress the fact that this second distinction is funda-
mental. It is not merely that scientific language is more precise, or
that it is “ technical ” ; the difference is one of kind — of a kind
most clearly illustrated in the difference between the common-sense
description of fight and colour and the scientific description of the
“ corresponding ” electro-magnetic waves. Traditionally, this
distinction has commonly been assimilated by philosophers either
to the distinction between matter and mind, or to that between
the “primary” and the “secondary” or higher order properties
of material things. For the present I wish merely to note the anti-
thesis without making any special assumption regarding its nature.

The third antithesis to which I would draw attention is that
between the brute empirical, or observational, data incorporated
in our account of response to stimulation and the non-empirical
elements — the hypotheses, constructions and methodological as-
sumptions by the utilization of which the otherwise detached
empirical data are assembled to yield the picture of a coherent causal
chain. It would take more than the time available for this discussion
even to state the many hypotheses relevant to the account given of

161]

and the Structure of the Mirul

285

each phase of the process — physical hypotheses concerning the
nature of the stimulating object and the constitution of the external
media, physiological hypotheses concerning the receptor processes
and internal conduction, and psychological hypotheses concerning
the experiences of the individual who responds to stimulation.

What in the present connection is of particular importance is the
distinction within the non-empirical elements between the special
hypotheses of each of the relevant sciences and the more general
assumptions — of a methodological character — concerning the nature
of the causal nexus, as such, through which each phase of the process
is linked to its neighbours. It is from such general presuppositions
that we are led to introduce for example the concepts of physical
and mental “ dispositions

It is clear that we cannot account for the causal process simply in
terms of a sequence of events or occurrences. We cannot account for
the connections either in terms solely of the actual occurrences
observed or solely in terms of these together with other actual
occurrences hypothetically assumed. In addition to occurrences
we postulate causal factors of a persistent (as opposed to an occur-
rent) nature.

The action of a stimulus or agent upon any material substance
would seem most commonly to produce two types of effect — firstly
a more or less transient event, and secondly a more or less permanent
change of state. Subjecting a bar of tempered steel to heat, for
example, produces a change of temperature in the bar and it produces
a persistent change in its elasticity. Stroking a bar of iron with a
magnet produces transient events in that bar and at the same time
induces in it persistent magnetic properties. Similarly, the fact
that a burnt child dreads the fire suggests that the temporary
apphcation of a nocive stimulus induces, firstly, a temporary change
in experience and behaviour — the immediate “ response ” — and,
secondly, a persistent disposition to behave in certain ways under
certain conditions.

We may picture to ourselves what happens in the case of the
magnetized bar of iron by saying that this bar really consists of a
multitude of smaller natural magnets in higgledy-piggledy order,
and by supposing that stroking the bar caused first the occurrent
movements of these component magnets (which movements formed
part of the immediate effect) and second it caused these component
magnets to assume and remain in a new kind of arrangement — this
being a standing arrangement which will persist until something
else happens to alter it again.

Similarly, we may be tempted to picture the dispositional change

286

Supernormal Faculty

[PABT

in the burnt child by saying that the original stimulus, in addition to
producing such events as the movements and experiences which
constituted the immediate response, produced some new “ standing
arrangement ” in the elements of his nervous system. But here
the theory of dispositions is complicated by the antithesis between
physical and mental properties. An alternative account is provided
by saying that the long period effect is to be explained by reference
to a change in the “ standing arrangements ” of the child’s mind.
This is a comphcation which will occupy us further in the
sequel.

Notwithstanding the obscurity and the hypothetical character of
much that it contains, this account of the general constitution of
man provides a convenient starting point for an inquiry into the
nature of the supernormal faculties.

We may note one small promising feature straight away. The
varied forms of supernormal process for which the strongest claims
have been advanced fall quite naturally into two main classes cor-
responding with those into which normal powers have been divided —
the receptive and the executive. Telepathy, clairvoyance, and pre-
cognition exemplify supernormal reception ; levitation, materializa-
tion and allied phenomena suggest the operation of powers of
action and response other than those that employ the mechanisms
of the normal neuro-muscular and glandular systems. Of course, the
antithesis must not be too sharply stressed. Telepathy, for example,
may be regarded either as an executive or as a receptive function
according as we suppose its distinctive feature to consist in a pecuhar
supernormal act of the agent initiating the communication or in a
pecuhar supernormal type of sensitivity in the recipient. In point
of fact it is not improbable that telepathic communication depends
upon two distinct supernormal faculties, corresponding to these two
cases, each of which calls for separate investigation. In my present
discussion, however, I shall be almost exclusively concerned with
cases in which the element of supernormahty enters primarily into
the receptive process.

The question next to be raised is : In what way, and at what point
precisely, does supernormality intervene? Clearly, intervention
must be located somewhere in the mtermediate phases of the process.
The remote or initiating stimulus is not itself supernormal. In
clairvoyance, telepathy or divination, for example, what is appre-
hended and is the initiating cause of the act of apprehension is a
natural event, commonly something happening in the material world
which from some vantage point can be presented through the normal
channels of sense perception. So, too, is the terminal phase of the

151]

and the Structure of the Mind

287

process, in its intrinsic nature, an event of perfectly normal con-
stitution— a cognitive experience which can be described in the
terminology accepted by psychologists of the normal. There is
nothing in the nature of a perception or a thought as presented to
introspection which enables us to distinguish the normal from the
supernormal. The distinction lies in the circumstances under which
the perception or thought occurs.

In the case of conceptual, ideational, or generally nonper-
ceptual types of awareness, there is a further observation to be
made which also helps us to restrict the field in which the intrusion
of the supernormal must be sought. When someone is conscious
of an event not sensibly presented there are three things to be dis-
tinguished ; (1) the bare presence of the idea of this occurrence to
mind, (2) the belief in this occurrence, and (3) the further conditions
which are satisfied when the occurrence of the event is not merely
entertained, not only believed, but in addition is known. Now in
the case of supernormal consciousness of the non-perceptual type
there is, so far as I can see, nothing supernormal in the genesis of
behef, and there is nothing supernormal in the epistemology of the
case. Given that the idea is present to nfind, the fact that it is
accepted as true can in principle be explained by general psychological
principles, and when it is known to he true this wdll be because it
satisfies the conditions which the epistemologist formulates in the
ordinary way for the purpose of distinguishing knowledge from mere
belief.

These considerations all serve to simplify and restrict our problem.
They reinforce what has earlier been said to the effect that what is
critical and essential in the assertion that supernormal communica-
tion has occurred is the causal implication of the statement. If I am
not over-simphfying the issue — and even on this view it remains, in
all conscience, sufficiently comphcated — our inquiry resolves itself
into a study in causality. The supernormality of supernormal
cognition resides in the supernormality of the causal process upon
which cognition depends. Accordingly our next step will be to
examine in somewhat greater detail the precise nature of the causal
nexus as it is exhibited in the normal process of reception.

So long as we try to formulate an account of the sequence of
events in terms acceptable to reflective common sense and not in
terms of the more sophisticated special philosophical and scientific
theories, we postulate, to begin with, a number of particular sub-
stances or things to which and in which these events happen. These
events are in general changes in the internal states of these things or
changes in their spatial or other relations to one another. Between

Supernormal Faculty

288

[part

such changes we assume that the things in question persist in certain
states and relations.

We have observed that the characters of these things may be
divided into material characters and mental characters, and further
that we can distinguish primary and secondary properties. Accord-
ingly we are compelled to make certain assumptions concerning the
distribution of these properties. We should preserve the maximum
freedom in the construction of interpretative hypotheses by assuming
that all possible combinations of these properties could be exhibited
in one and the same thing, and that anything might be deficient in
one or more of these types of property. In point of fact most theories
are constructed on the assumption that the possible combinations
are more limited than this. Partly on a priori grounds, and partly
on empirical grounds it is most generally assumed that some pairs of
properties are invariably disjoined and others invariably conjoined.

It has, for example, been very generally assumed, since the time
of Descartes at any rate, that nothing combines material and mental
characteristics, from which it follows that the cycle with which we
are concerned is one which involves some purely material things
and some purely mental things in causal, quasi-causal, pseudo-causal
or some other more mysterious relation. Personally, I consider this
to be extremely dubious, and am more favourably disposed toward
some of the recent theories according to which the things we are
concerned with may possess both or neither of the types of characters
which are defined respectively as material and mental. But since I
am concerned to formulate an account of the normal sequence of
response to stimulation so far as may be in terms acceptable to
reflective common sense and the most widely current opinions of the
day — and not in terms of special philosophical theories — I provision-
ally lay down that we are concerned with a set of substances some
of which are assumed to have material properties but not assumed to
have mental properties, and others of which are assumed to have
mental properties but not assumed to have material properties. I
need not assume, however, that nothing has neither.

Regarding the distinction between primary and secondary
properties^ — which I shall assume to be equivalent to the distinction
between spatio-temporal and other relational properties on the one
hand and qualities in the narrower sense of this term on the other — ■
I shall assume that for ordinary scientific pimposes we shall need to
refer only to the primary properties of material things, but that in
the analysis of the ])sychological phases of the process secondary
properties will enter into our descriptions.

Accordingly, the structural basis of the response to stimulation

151]

and the Structure of the Mind

289

will be constituted by, firstly, a set of discrete material things
possessing characteristic internal states and standing to one another
in certain spatial relations and connected with one another by
certain media, which media may be conceived to be continuous (hke
a jelly) or made up of a compact mass of smaller particular discrete
substances (hke a bag of lead shot), and, secondly, by a set of mental
substances or individual minds. The latter, unlike the material
substances, are not spatially adjoined, except indirectly or in a
special sense through their relations to bodies, nor are they, on
ordinary views, connected by a mental medium picturable as a
jelly or as a bag of shot. There are, however, reasons for supposing
that what is commonly regarded as a single discrete individual
mind either is itself, or is part of, a collection of minds, one member
of which collection is the central conscious being we introspect, the
others constituting secondary or subconscious personalities, or, on
certain views, a set of subordinate “ monads ”. But whether we
are concerned with the central conscious self or with any particular
subordinate personahty or monad, it is assumed that this self is
hnked throughout life to a material body or some part of such body.
Commonly the mode of hnkage is conceived to be something sui
generis. It is unlike the mode of hnkage exhibited by the material
parts of a material thing ; it is unhke the mode of linkage which
holds between two properties of the same thing. That is to say, it is
neither any sort of cohesion or spatial adjunction, nor any sort of
co-characterization .

Within certain hmits we can conceive the total system constituted
by a set of material things, some of which are hnked with minds, as
being at rest, i.e. as maintaining the same unchanging states
throughout a period of time. We can do this more easily for the
material part of the system. We can picture a potentially stimidat-
ing object remaining at a constant temperature and we can picture
the material media, through which a change of temperature might
be communicated, as xmdisturbed — at least we can do this so long
as we conceive the state of affairs in common-sense qualitative
terms.

But even at the unsophisticated common-sense level we encounter
difficulties when we try similarly to picture the psychological part
of the system as at rest. The difficulty of maintaining even for a
moment or two a hterally and strictly unchanging mental state
disposes common sense readily to accept such statements as that
“ all consciousness is consciousness of change ” or that “ all con-
sciousness is changes of consciousness ”. We can evade these
difficulties for the moment by thinking of a temporal cross section

290

Supernormal Faculty

[part

of the state of affairs or of the state of affairs in the whole system at
a certain time. This yields us the picture of the structure of the
system as a whole — a picture of certain material things in certain
positions and in certain states, of certain minds presented with
certain sensory data and images and further characterized by feehngs
and desires, and with their bodies ready for the reception of further
stimuli and prepared for the execution of a suitable response.

Let us next consider certain general features of the causal process
when the machinery begins to work. In the simplest case the cycle
of events is initiated by a change in one object which operates on
the remote stimulus, say a change consisting in a specific type of
oscillation in the particles of this object — an oscillation which is
precisely defined by specifying such variables as the amplitude and
rate of movement. This change or some other more or less similar
change is then taken up by an adjacent member of the system, the
same or a similar change is taken up by another member adjacent
to the second, and so a series of corresponding changes is propagated
through the system as a whole.

The expression “ this change or some other more or less similar
change ” draws attention to a general character of the causal nexus
which requires some discussion. The parallelism of events character-
istic of communication, whether normal or supernormal, arises in
virtue of the fact that effects resemble their causes in certain
respects. Several historical controversies have been concerned with
the kind and degree of similarity which holds between cause and
effect. The truth of the matter I believe to be that effects are both
similar and different from their causes. They are similar in certain
respects and they differ in certain respects. Clarity requires that
we should endeavour to specify the respects in which they are
similar and the respects in which they differ, and the circumstances
under which similarity and difference will themselves differ in degree
and kind.

That some special kind of similarity holds between events causally
connected follows, I believe, from the definition of causality or from
the criteria by which we distinguish causal connection from coin-
cidence. We assert causal connection with greatest assurance on
the basis of observing concomitant variations. But the vague
phrase “ concomitant variations ” covers two things, first the spatio-
temporal or other type of adjunction between the events, and second
some similarity of form or parallehsm between two series of changes.

This similarity or parallehsm varies in degree. The limiting case
of exact similarity in all respects is one to which a pair of occurrences
approximate under certain special conditions. The closest approxi-

151]

and the Structure of the Mind

291

mation is found when the substance in which the effect is produced
is exactly similar in internal constitution and closely adjacent to
that in which the causal event occurs — i.e. in the case of conduction
through a homogeneous medium. Difference between cause and
effect arises where there is spatial separation or difference in internal
constitution between the things to which the events happen.

In conduction through a homogeneous medium, where difference
is only difference in spatial position, the effect will resemble the
cause in proportion to the proximity of the “ patient ” to the
“ agent ”, and the greater the distance between them the greater
the difference between the two events. Commonly the precise
character of both the differences and the similarities will be defined
by a specific formula — such as a law of inverse squares. WTien the
causal process consists in the transference of some change from an
agent of one type of internal constitution to a “ patient ” of a
different type of constitution other differences will be superimposed.
Here, too, in simple cases, the character of the transformation can
be precisely defined — as when, for example, the character of the
effect can be referred to the curvature of a mirror or lens, or to the
refractive index, the density or the elasticity of a transmitting
medium. Very small differences in internal constitution are suffi-
cient to make the differences between cause and effect much more
prominent than their similarities. But even in extreme cases some
similarities may be found. In fact, it is by reason of their detection
that causal relations are discerned.

A critical case is that in which, on traditional assumptions, the
physical and physiological cycle produces changes in the mind.
Electromagnetic oscillations being followed by certain corresponding
changes in the cerebro-retinal apparatus of sight are in turn fol-
lowed by the appearance to the percipient of a flash of coloured
fight. On the traditional assumptions, within the framework of
which we are endeavouring to conceive the process, the second
transition like the first is causal in nature. On any view this second
transition contains much that is peculiar and mysterious. I want
to emphasize this point because the admitted mystery in normal
psychology may turn out to be bound up with some of the mysteries
of psychical research. For one thing, there is on any view some-
thing peculiar about the spatio-temporal nexus. In the purely
physical phases of the process spatial continuity is finked with
temporal continuity, so that events proximate in time are proximate
in space, and events relatively remote in the temporal order are also
relatively remote in the spatial order too. Now what leads us to
assign the emergence of a visual sensory datum to a definite position

292

Supernormal Faculty

[part

in the causal series is the fact that it can be given a fairly definite
position in the temporal series. We assign it to the moment at which
the physiological conductive-process has reached a certain place in
the cerebro-retinal apparatus. On the analogy with normal physical
causation the unsophisticated may accordingly be so misled as to
link spatial with temporal proximity by saying that the sensory
datum has its being inside one’s head. The less unsophisticated,
seeing the objections to this, are content to say that the datum is in
one’s mind, or more guardedly still, in the presentational or pheno-
menal field. In addition to the spatio-temporal peculiarities affecting
this phase of the process there is a pecuharity with respect to what
we may call the substantival factors in the causal process. It is
admitted that variations in the character of the sensory datum are
so finked with variations in the stimuli as to suggest causal connec-
tion. Clearly, however, these variations are not explained by the
stimuli alone, nor by the stimuli together with the pre-existent
properties and states of the body as physically defined. If, therefore,
we persist in the endeavour to adhere to the general principles of
causal explanation we have invoked elsewhere — accounting for a
change by reference to an external occurrent factor operating upon
a substantial thing of a certain nature, referring to the latter all that
is not accounted for by the former — we are led to postulate some non-
physical substance upon which the stimulus acts and within which or to
which the effect event occurs. That is to say, just as we account for
the fact that an electro-magnetic stimulus produces a chemical
change in the cerebro-retinal apparatus by reference to the con-
stitution of that apparatus itself, so we account for the fact that the
latter chemical action in the nervous system produces a change of
sensory experience by postulating something of substantival type,
the nature of which contributes to the effect to be explained.
Sometimes the substantival factor has been identified with the mind
itself and a sensory experience regarded as one of its “ states ”. A
variant of this view is illustrated by the hypothesis of James Ward,
who distinguished this substantival factor from the “self”, regarding
it as a “ psychoplasm ” analogous in some respects to the plastic
material of which bodies are composed, but possessing the distinc-
tive properties required to account for the observed effects. Con-
temporary philosophers of many otherwise diverse schools are content
to describe sensory data as neutral (as between matter and mind)
and they try to avoid committing themselves to any assertion to the
effect that sensations are states of any substance whatever. In fact,
such an account would often be explicitly denied. In this they may
be right ; but the point I wish here to press is that to make this

151]

and the Structure of the Mind

293

denial entails a consequential modification of our views as to the
kind of causality implied when we speak of our sensory experiences
as being caused by happenings in the brain. On any ordinary
view of causafity what happens in the brain can be only a contribu-
tory causal factor — and some other factor must be postulated on any
view which is not content to leave the matter wrapped in impene-
trable mystery.

In point of fact, the circumstances are essentially similar to those
in consequence of which we postulate dispositions. It is rather
curious to observe that whilst factors of substantival type are freely
postulated in all explanations of normal memory it has not been so
commonly or so exphcitly recognized that factors of the same type
are required for any reasonably complete account of normal sen-
sation. In neither case is the existence of such a factor to be as-
serted on grounds of direct observation. In both cases the grounds
reside in the adoption of certain causal postulates. It is also only
on accoimt of such postulates that we can assert that the contribu-
tory factor in its intrinsic nature is mental or that it is physical.
But I cannot clearly see any well-estabhshed principle which would
justify either of these assertions. In fact I beheve both views are open
to serious objections. If this be so, that is, if we are led by general
considerations to postulate such a factor, and further general con-
siderations prevent us from asserting it to be mental or physical, we
are accordingly led to postulate something which is neither mental
nor physical or which we can, if we are so disposed, picturesquely
describe as belonging to a “ third realm of being ”. Philosophically
such language is no doubt objectionable, but it has the practical
psychological advantages of freeing our mind from misleading
associations and of conferring a certain plasticity upon the ideas we
require in order to develop some of the much needed hypotheses of
psychical research. Accordingly without more ado, and subject to
all the qualifications which the philosophically minded can supply
for themselves I shall permit myself in what follows to speak of this
possible third order of being — referring to it noncommittally as the
Tertium Quid., to signalize the fact that we neither assert it to be
mental nor assert it to be material — as a factor which seems to be
required both as a contributory cause in the genesis of sensation
and as a vehicle of dispositions. If I am right, and if the factor is
required at all, it is required for the explanation of normal experience.
The question then arises : Granting the existence of this cause factor
can it further assist in the construction of any intelligible theory
concerning supernormal modes of communication ?

The foregoing lines of thought have led us to a general conception

294

Supernormal Faculty

[part

of the causal structure of the world within the framework of which
we must try to fit both normal and supernormal types of communica-
tion. Causahty in general is a source of parallelism between series
of events. Many examples of parallehsm are afforded in the process
of reception and in the larger process of response to stimulation.
The events in the external transmitting medium parallel events in
the originating stimulus object. The events in the cerebral cortex
are parallel with those in the receptor organs. There is that par-
ticularly interesting parallelism between events in the brain and
events in the mind which is assumed by the traditional doctrine of
psycho-physical parallelism and in the doctrine of “ isomorphism ”
of the Gestalt psychologists. In general there are as many special
parallehsms as there are pairs of links in the causal chain involved
in response to stimulation. Such parallelisms, however, are in
varying degrees imperfect. Imperfection in the parallehsm arises
from the attenuation of effects with spatial and temporal distance,
from the discontinuities which issue from the differences in intrinsic
nature between the components in and to which the cause and
effect events occur, and it arises in even greater measure in virtue
of the considerations which inductive logicians have dealt with under
the heads of “ composition of causes ” and the “ intermixture of
effects ”. But both the parallelism and the divergence from the
parallelism are accounted for by three constituent types of mechanism
in the system, (1) mechanisms whereby parallel similar effects are
produced at places different from those at which an agent operates,
(ii) mechanisms whereby parallel similar effects are produced at
times different from those in which the causal event occurs, and (iii)
mechanism whereby parallel but dissimilar effects are produced at
remote places or times. We may designate these mechanisms
mechanisms of diffusion, mechanisms of retention and mechanisms
of translation. The conduction of light, sound and electricity under
simple conditions illustrate the mechanisms of diffusion. The
persistence of physical, physiological or mental dispositional
properties on all theories of traces and “ engrams ” illustrate the
mechanisms of retention. The operation of a proximate stimulus
upon a receptor and the production of sound by electrical impulses
illustrate the mechanisms of translation.

In virtue of the fact that translation processes are sometimes
reversible and sometimes cyclical, retranslation may occur, so that
similar effects are produced at remote places and times in spite of
dissimilarities in the intervening stages of the process. Such pro-
cesses are illustrated in photography, in mechanical systems for
reproducing sound, in broadcasting systems, and most notably in

295

151] and the Structure of the Mind

the normal mechanism whereby ideas in one mind are reproduced
in another mind.

Accordingly, we do not need to extend our survey beyond the
realm of the normal to realize that the constitution of our world is
such that there is no reason, in principle, why a sequence of events
at one place and time should not reflect itself in a parallel sequence
at any other place or time. There is nothing, in principle, to prevent
a sequence of events occurring in Athens two thousand years ago
being reflected in Tooting to-day, if a Tooting historian cares to
reconstruct the Athenian events in his mind The normal psychology
of cognition has the appropriate concepts of diffusion, retention and
translation of effects to account for the fact. The parallelism of
events, however, is subject to restrictive conditions. Eestrictive
conditions are imphed no less by supernormal than by normal modes
of communication. The nature of these restrictive conditions, as
they are empirically ascertained, will provide our main sources of
suggestion in the construction of detailed hypotheses for psychical
research.

Telepathy and clairvoyance, both spontaneous and of the kind
which is studied by Mr T}Trell and by Dr Rhine, the occurrence of
apparitions, post-cognitive experiences of the type recorded by Miss
Moberley and Miss Jourdain, precognition and other modes of super-
normal intuition all fall within the scope of the general principles
which govern the parallelism of events. Little as we know as yet
concerning any of these things there is ample empirical evidence
that they are not of a wholly random character, but are subject to
restrictive conditions. What is more interesting is the fact that
we can specify to some degree what the restrictive conditions
are.

In telepathic communication of the typical sort — I nearly said
“ of the normal sort ” — there appear to be no restrictive conditions
with regard to place. Agent and recipient of the communication
may be seated on the same settee, or they may be separated by the
diameter of the earth. Nor need one party to the transaction even
know where the other may chance to be. Whether there be any
restricting conditions of the temporal sort the evidence is not clear,
but in the most representative cases approximate simultaneity of
the parallel events is generally supposed to hold. The most definite
evidence of restrictive conditions in these cases pertains to the
alterable mental states of the agent and recipient and the emotional
relations between them. There is also some evidence of the existence
of restrictive conditions affecting the subject matter of communica-
tion ; but in this connection there are important differences between

296

Supernormal Faculty

[part

spontaneous and experimental telepathy. The most striking cases
of the former are cases in which the communication concerns matters
of emotional significance to one at least of the participants, whereas
in the majority of experimental studies what is in general transmitted
is information of no importance to either the participants or, for
that matter, to anybody else. Another matter calling for investiga-
tion is the possibility of restrictive conditions with regard to volition.
In normal psychology there is reason for supposing that some powers
are facilitated by voluntary effort and that others are inhibited by
effort in accordance with a principle picturesquely formulated by
Coue as “ the law of reversed effort ”. It would be of interest to
inquire whether telepathic communication falls into the latter
category. There are, in short, many specific questions of a psycho-
logical nature on which co-operative research on the part of students
of the normal and students of the supernormal could hardly fail to
be to the advantage of both.

In the case of hauntings and supernormal cognition of the kind
recorded by Miss Moberley and Miss Jourdain, the restrictive
conditions suggested by a first analysis are of a very different kind,
and indicate in consequence the operation of an entirely different
kind of causal mechanism. A survey of representative cases does
not encourage the behef that commumcation is restricted to indi-
viduals of any particular mental type or to individuals in some
peculiar mental condition, or that it occurs only between agents
and recipients between whom there is any pre-estabhshed rapport.
In the typical “ ghost story ” emphasis is placed upon the fact that
the apparition is presented to normal, matter-of-fact, observers —
observers very frequently having no acquaintance with or even
knowledge about the person who is presumed to be manifest in the
phenomenon. On the other hand, there are very severe restrictions
of a spatial kind. It is a particular house that is haunted and com-
monly a very narrowly restricted region of the house. Spatial
restriction, in fact, is very frequently the most strongly emphasized
circumstantial detail. The kind of apparition that appears to walk
just above or just below the level of the floor (in defiance of the
structural alterations which have affected the behaviour of normal
pedestrian residents) presents the sort of problem that the psy-
chologist is only too ready to pass on to someone else. This is a kind
of restrictive condition which, if it does not suggest any particular
causal hypothesis, at least indicates the field in which an hypothesis
miist be sought. Whereas telepathy and clairvoyance, and other
phenomena of the class above distinguished, bristle with problems
of a psychological nature one’s feeling in these space-restricted

151]

and the Structure of the Mind

297

phenomena is that they contain something very important with
which the psychologist as such has httle competence to deal.

Precognition presents yet another type of problem. Whilst the
case is covered by the general description “ a parallehsm of events ”,
the parallehsm is one which does not admit of any plausible causal
explanation apart from rather drastic modification either of our
concepts of causahty or of our concept of time. No doubt there are
purely psychological questions to be investigated here, questions
similar to those raised concerning telepathy, but I do not think that
these are the central and crucial problems in studies of precognition.
The utihty of the normal psychologist to psychical research is
enhanced in proportion to the degree to which he addresses himself
to its problem with a full consciousness of the extent to which his
own special competence is restricted. A good deal can be done in
the way of getting clear concerning what is specifically psychological
in the situation and what must be referred to philosophy or to one
of the other special sciences.

Reviewing them generally, however, and taking them at their
face value, empirical observations of the kind with which we are
concerned do, I think, point to the probable necessity for the
development of our provisional hypothesis of a residual substantival
factor which resembles the postulated vehicle of mental dispositions
in its capacity to produce parallel events after a lapse of time, but
which in its capacity to produce such parallels throughout periods
of time which transcend the individual life has some, at least, of the
properties attributed to an “ immortal soul ”, and which further
in its capacity to produce these parallel series in remote localities
beyond the range of normal personal influence is analogous to the
“ ether ” of unsophisticated physics. It is for these reasons, pre-
sumably, that untutored popular opinion in its first attempt to
assimilate the facts of supernormal communication has produced
that pecuhar psycho-physical hybrid — the notion of a kind of
“ psychic ether ”, which can be vehicle of “ thought waves ” and
retain the engrams of emotionally changed events, which later can
be ecphorized in ghostly apparitions.

Before we shout down this theory in scientific horror let us try
to define a little more precisely where its error lies. To give it its due
this kind of theory has the virtue of concreteness, and I think it is
an advantage in the earher stages of our science to try to work in
concrete, and so far as possible, picturable terms. It is better to be
crude than obscure. It is better to employ the pounds, shilhngs and
pence of everyday notions than to try to deal with the more refined
conceptual currency of higher physics as this currency emerges fresh

298

Supernormal Faculty

[part

from the mint. Even in physics common sense preceded Newton
and Newton came before Einstein. In psychical research we await
our Newton.

The chief defects of the theory of a “ psychic ether ” he, I think,
less in its theory of diffusion and retention than in the theory of
translation, and less in the account of how impressions are en-
graphically recorded than in its account of how they are later
ecphorized ; and it is defective not in supposing these events to
occur, but in providing no suggestion as to the conditions of their
occurrences.

Personally I am of the opinion that we can, with a good scientific
conscience, postulate the existence of a medium which records
impressions of all sorts of patterns of events, and which later or
elsewhere may produce a corresponding pattern. We need not ask :
what is the intrinsic constitution of this medium ; we need not yet
ask how it does it. The postulated medium, in fact, needs only to
be endowed with the one virtue expected of all hypothetical entities
— the virtue of doing exactly what it is told. In order to be non-
committal in respect of what is unimportant I have labelled our
hypothetical medium the Tertium Quid, and I would if I could be
even more non-committal still. But, however non-committal we
may choose to be we are bound to ask : Under what conditions do
these events occur? Under what conditions does this Tertium Quid
receive impressions and under what conditions will these impressions
be ecphorized or revived.

Let us, then, construct hypotheses. Let us say, to begin with :
No special conditions are required. The medium is such that any
sort of event will produce its appropriate impression. This hypo-
thesis may recall to mind a well-known passage in which William
James tries to frighten us into good behaviour by an argument
based on a highly generalized theory of physiological dispositions.
“ Every smallest stroke of virtue or of vice ”, he writes, “ leaves its
never so little scar. The drunken Rip Van Winkle, in Jefferson’s
play, excuses himself for each fresh dereliction by saying ‘ I won’t
count this time ’. Well! he may not count it, and a kind Heaven
may not count it ; but it is being counted none the less. Down
among his nerve cells and fibres the molecules are counting it,
registering it and storing it up to be used against him when the next
temptation comes. Nothing we ever do is, in strict scientific hteral-
ness, wiped out.”

Let us, then, for the moment throw caution to the winds and
go one better than James. Let us suppose that somewhere in our
Tertium Quid everything that happens anywhere or to anything is

151] and the Structure of the Mind 299

duly recorded. This is an extravagant hypothesis, but I suggest
that, while we are about it, we take all we want and more, and return
later what we cannot use.

Given, accordingly, that all that happens produces its own
engrain, we ask next ; Under what condition will ecphory occur, i.e.
under what conditions will the engram reveal its existence in a
series of events parallel to those it records. Suppose we answer
again : No special conditions are required. An impression recorded
at one place or time will express itself, without further conditions
being fulfilled at all other places and all other times. But this, of
course, is demonstrably nonsense. It is to say that, for example,
any casual sneeze at one place and time will reflect its characteristic
pattern at every other place for all time. We know that it does not.
One hypothesis at any rate can be quickly disposed of. Suppose,
next, that we go to the other extreme of caution and assert that
whilst every event records its imirressions upon the Tertium Quid,
the conditions to be realized before ecphory can occur are probably
so many and so complex that in practice the production of parallel
events will hardly ever, if ever, occur. Our caution has led us here
into the assertion of another kind of nonsense. What we have
asserted in one breath we have denied in the next any possibility of
verification. The existence of engrams is postulated only on the
grounds of their manifestation in ecphorized events. To deny the
possibility of the latter is to deprive ourselves of our sole reason for
asserting the former. It may be entertaining to think of Nature as
engaged in writing a very long book not a single word of which will
ever be read, but such a hypothesis, however entertaining, has no
scientific function.

Any sensible hypothesis must fall somewhere between these two
extreme suggestions. In all theories concerning engrams, traces or
dispositions, we have to begin with a choice between certain abstract
possibilities. We can postulate universal engraphy — within the
relevant field — together with restricted or selective ecphory ; we
can postulate selective engraphy with universal ecphory or we can
assume the more complicated case of selective or restricted engraphy
and selective or restricted ecphory. In the case of memory, for ex-
ample, this third alternative is assumed by common sense — i.e. that
some, but not all, of the things we perceive produce memory traces,
and some, but not all, of those traces later admit of revival or recall.
An important school of psychologists, on the other hand, favour the
view of universal retention with selective or restricted revival. It is
suggested by these psychologists that every perceptual experience
is in a sense retained, but that apart from some special technique

300

Su2)ernormal Faculty

[part

of liyjAiosis or psycho-therapy only a restricted portion of these
memories can be revived. The third alternative cannot be dismissed
offhand, viz. that we are restricted in respect of what the memory
can assimilate, but what it can assimilate it can in principle revive.
But whichever hypothesis we choose to adopt we begin to mean busi-
ness with this hy]iothesis when, and only when, we attempt to
specify the principles of restriction or selection. So, too, we shall
Ijegin to mean business with our hypothesis of the Tertium Quid
when we commence to formidate the specific conditions by which the
supernormal parallelism of events is in some measure restricted.

The point I wish to stress is that between the two extreme and
absurd hypotheses to which I have referred there are already some
fairly well-defined and generally accepted hypotheses of intermediate
and restricted type designed to account for facts regarded as normal.
To modify these hypotheses to cover the supernormal does not
involve any very fundamental question of principle. We can extend
the range of application of these hypotheses by removing specific
restrictions. This logically and methodologically is a matter of
detail ; and the removal of the restrictions can be carried out by a
piecemeal, step by step, procedure.

We may start, for example, from some such formulation as we find
in the hypotheses of Richard Semon, whose grotesqiie but useful
terminology I have already drawn upon. This hypothesis is formu-
lated in two principal laws. The law of Engraphy reads : “ All sim-
ultaneoTis excitements in an organism form a connected simultaneous
excitement complex, which, as such, works engraphically, i.e. leaves
behind a connected engrain complex which in so far forms a whole.”
The Law of Ecphory reads ; “ The partial return of the energetic
situation which formerly worked engraphically operates ecphorically
on a simultaneous engrain complex.”

This, as it stands, states the hypothesis in a form required for
mnemic facts as described in ] physiological and biological terms. If
we wish to describe ^psychological processes the laws may be restated
in terms which are a^pproximately equivalent to the traditional laws
of association. But, in either case, the laws are restricted in their
apphcation to occurrences in one and the same individual organism or
mind. If, however, we are impressed by the evidence which writers
such as Jung adduce for supposing that ideas or impressions elabor-
ated in primitive minds may be reinstated in later generations, we
can formulate a doctrine of the “ collective unconscious ” in a form
which makes this simply a modification of Semon’s hypothesis. We
remove the restriction to one individual and suppose that an en-
graphic record in one person may be ecphorized in a lineal descendant.

151]

and the Structure of the Mind

301

What degrees of kinship are allowed would be, of course, a matter
for empirical research. I do not in the least wish to commit myself
to any such hypothesis. My point is merely that it is open to no
objection in principle. It is one that could be established by certain
kinds of empirical fact.

Continuing step by step we could, if the facts supported us,
progressively relax our conditions, extending the range of kinship
allowed. A more radical but still, in principle, legitimate extension
of the hypothesis could be made so as to bring 'within its scope facts
of the telepathic type. In Semon’s hyjjothesis an engraphic record
is ecphorized at a different time in the same person, or (in a sense) in
the same place. A more general principle might be suggested which
would allow also an engraphic record to be “ ecphorized ” at the
same time but in a different place. Such a principle would be very
similar to certain principles which are in fact suggested in the
formulae of Gestalt psychology. The general assertion that a change
in one part of the ])henomenal field involves a reorganization of the
field as a whole opens the possibility of certain types of simultaneous
parallelism in virtue of which we can say that the events in one
place may be reflected in a different place. Such laws are in

general expressed in purely phenomenological terms and they are,
of course, restricted to “ places ” within the presentational field of
one and the same individual. But they might be restated in a form
uivolving a specific reference to what I have called the “ substan-
tival factor ” required in the complete theory of presentation, and
5ve might here, as elsewhere, suppose this substantival factor to be
identical with that which serves as the vehicle of temporal dis-
positions.

From this point we could again proceed step by step to remove
specific restrictions. If we remove the restriction to the single
individual or organi.sm, we then have the hypothesis that an excite-
ment affecting the substantival factor in one individual may be
simultaneously ecphorized (in a generalized sense of “ ecphory ”) in
another individual. If we remove our restrictions gradually by
reference to degrees of kinship then, quite in its early stages of its
extension, our hypothesis would appear to cover the queer facts
recorded by Galton concerning the coincident thoughts of twins,
and it would accord well with the facts which have been recorded
concerning the greater frequency of telepathic communication
between close blood relations.

All hypotheses of this type amount to saying, in more concrete
picturable terms, that whilst actual exjDeriences are private and
restricted to individual minds, what I have called the Tertium Quid

302

Supernormal Faculty

[part 151

or the vehicle of dispositions is something that is individualized in
other ways. Such dispositional factors on these hypotheses are in
some measure shared.

I need hardly say that I attach no special importance to any of
the particular hypotheses to which I have referred. My aim rather
has been to suggest a certain general schema of possibilities within
which such hypotheses will fall, and to suggest a general procedure
whereby hypotheses may be framed and modified. In every case,
the line of advance will be suggested by directing attention to restric-
tive conditions. I have mentioned in passing some of the types of
restriction which the records seem to indicate, and it would be pos-
sible to mention many more. Most of these can be empirically
tested, and here I think is one well-defined field of co-operative
research for psychologists of the normal and students of psychical
research.

FORMER PRESIDENTS OF THE SOCIETY FOR PSYCHICAL RESEARCH.

Peofbssor Henry Sedgwick - 1882-84.
Professor Balfour Stewart, F.B.S. 1885-87
Professor Henry Sidgwick - 1888-92.
The Earl of Balfour, K.G., O.M. 1893.
Professor William James - - 1894-95.

Sm W'lLLiAM Crookes, O.M. , F.B.S. 1896-99.
Frederic W. H. Myers - - 1900.

Sir Oliver Lodge, F.B.S. - - 1901-03.

Sir William Barrett, F.B.S. - 1904.

Professor Charles Bichet - 1905.

The Bight Hon. G. W. Balfour - 1906-07.
Mrs Henry Sedgwick - - 1908-09.

H. Arthur Smith - - - 1910.

Andrew Lang - - - - 1911.

Bt. Bev. Bishop W. Boyd Carpen-
ter, D.D. 1912.

Professor Henri Bergson - - 1913.

F. C. S. Schiller, D.Sc. - - 1914.

Professor Gilbert Murray.

LL.D., Litt.D. - - - - 1915-16.

L. P. Jacks, LL.D., D.D. - - 1917-18.

Lord Bayleigh, O.M., F.B.S. - 1919.

W. McDouGALL, F.B.S., M.Sc., M.B. 1920-21.
T. W. Mitchell, M.D. - - - 1922.

Camille Flammarion - - - 1923.

J. G. PIDDINGTON - - - - 1924-25.

Professor Dr Hans Driesch - 1926-27.
Sir Lawrence J. Jones, Bart. - 1928-29.
Dr Walter Franklin Prince - 1930-31
Mrs Henry Sidgwick (President a
of Honour) ‘ / 1932.

Sir Oliver Lodge, F.B.S. - i
The Hon. Mrs Alfred Lyttelton,

G.B.E. - - - - 1933-34.

Professor C. D. Broad - - 1935-36.

OFFICERS AND COUNCIL FOR 1937.

PRESIDENT.

Lord Rayleigh, F.R.S.

VICE-PRESIDENTS.

The Earl of Balfohr.

George B. Dorr.

Professor Dr Hans Driesch.
L. P. Jacks, LL.D., D.D.

Sm Lawrence J. Jones, Bart.
Sm Oliver Lodge, F.R.S., D.Sc.

Professor Gilbert Murray, LL.D.,
Litt.D.

J. G. Piddington.

Sm J. J. Thomson, O.M.,

F.R.S.

COUNCIL.

The Earl of Balfour.

Sm Ernest Bennett, M.P.
Professor C. D. Broad, Litt.D.
Wm. Brown, M.D., D.Sc.

W. Whately Carington.
Professor E. R. Dodds.

Oliver Gatty.

Gerald Heard.

Lord Charles Hope.
Professor Julian Huxley.
Miss Ina Jephson.

Sm Lawrence J. Jones, Bart.
G. W. Lambert.

Sm Oliver Lodge, F.R.S.

The Hon. Mrs Alfred Lyttelton.

G.B.E.

W. McDougall, F.R.S., M.Sc., M.B.
T. W. Mitchell, M.D.

W. H. Salter.

Mrs W. H. Salter.

H. F. Saltmarsh.

S. G. SOAL.

AoMmAL The Hon. A. C. Strutt,

R.N.

The Rev. C. Drayton Thomas.
Miss Nea Walker.

M. B. Wright, M.D.

HON. TREASURER.

ADMmAL The Hon. A. C. Strutt, R.N., 31 Tavistock Square, London, W.C. 1 .

HON. SECRETARY.

W. H. Salter, The Crown House, Newport, Essex.

HON. EDITOR.

Mrs W. H. Salter, The Crown House, Newport, Essex.

HON. LIBRARIAN.

G. H. Spinney, B.A.

SECRETARY.

Miss I. Newton, 31 Tavistock Square, London, W.C. 1.

RESEARCH OFFICER.

C. V. C. Herbert.

AGENTS FOR AMERICA.

The F. W. Faxon Co., 83 Francis Street, Boston, Mass., U.S.A.

304

Members and Associates

[part

MEMBERS AND ASSOCIATES.

DECEMBER, 1937.

President — Lord Rayleigh, F.R.S.

Vice-Presidents.

The Right Hon. the Earl of Balfour, P.C., LL.D., Fishers Hill, Woking,
Surrey.

George B. Dorr, 18 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Mass., U.S.A.
Professor Hans Driesch, Ph.D., M.D., LL.D., Zollnerstrasse 1, Leipzig,
Germany.

L. P. Jacks, LL.D., D.D., Far Outlook, Shotover Hill, Oxford.

Sir Lawrence J. Jones, Bart., 39 Harrington Gardens, London, S.W. 7.
Sir Oliver Lodge, F.R.S. , Normanton House, Lake, nr. Salisbury.
Professor Gilbert Murray, LL.D., Litt.D., Yatscombe, Boars Hill,
Oxford.

J. G. Piddington, Fishers Hill, Woking, Surrey.

Sir J. .1. Thomson, O.M., F.R.S., Trinity Lodge, Cambridge.

Honorary Members.

Professor R. A. Fisher, F.R.S., University College, London, W.C. 1.
Miss Alice Johnson, 1 Millington Road, Cambridge.

Count Perovsky-Petrovo-Solovovo, 43 Elm Park Mansions, Park Walk,
London, S.W. 10.

Sir Joseph J. Thomson, O.M., F.R.S., Trinity Lodge, Cambridge.
Corresponding Members.

Professor Henri Bergson, Bd de Beau Sejour 47, Paris, France.
President Nicholas M. Butler, Columbia University, New York, U.S.A.
Dr Max Dessoir, Speyererstrasse 9, Berlin, W. 30, Germany.

Professor Dr Freud, Berggasse 19, Vienna IX., Austria.

Professor Pierre Janet, rue de Varenne 54, Paris, France.

Dr C. G. Jung, Seestrasse 228 .Kusnacht, E. Zurich, Switzerland.

Count Carl von Klinckowstroem.

Maurice Maeterlinck, Villa des Abeilles, Nice, France.

Professor T. K. Oesterreich, Nauklerstrasse 23, Tubingen, Germany.

Dr Eugene Osty, Avenue Niel 89, Paris, France.

Dr Rudolf Tischner, Ditlindenstrasse 18, Munich, Germany.

Carl Vett, 13 Kongen’s Nytorv, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Dr Elwood Worcester, 186 Marlborough Street, Boston, Mass., U.S.A.

151]

Members and Associates

305

Honorary Associates.

Dallas, Miss H. A., Bellevue Hotel, Hurstpierpoint, Sussex.

Gow, David, 16 Queensberry Place, London, S.W. 7.

Hill, J. Arthur, Claremont, Thornton, Bradford.

Hoernle, Professor R. F. A., University of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg, S. Africa.

Irving, Rev. W. S., Oxenhall Vicarage, Newent, Glos.

Muirhead, Professor J. H., Dyke End, Rotherfield, Sussex.

Richmond, Kenneth, 82 North End Road, Holders Green, Loudon,

N.W. 11.

Sage, Prof. Charles M., rue de Coulmiers 33, Paris XIV®, France.
Tanagra, Dr A., Odos Aristotelous 67, Athens, Greece.

Tenhaeff, Dr W. H. C., Adm. v. Gentstraat, 53 bis, Utrecht, Nether-
lands.

Thouless, Professor R. H., The University, Glasgow.

Wereide, Dr Th., The University, Oslo, Norway.

Members and Associates.

An asterisk is prefixed to the names of Members.

*Adams, B. A., Kilrea, Lindsay Road, Hampton Hill, Middlesex.
*Adlercron, Mrs Rodolph, Culverthorpe Hall, Grantham.

*Albemarle, Countess of, Quidenham, Norwich.

*Albery, George C., K.C., City Hall, Meaford, Canada.

Alexander, Professor S., 24 Brunswick Road, Withington, Manchester.
Allan, Miss J., Invergloy House, Invergloy, Inverness-shire.

Allen, Professor H. J., Marley Orchard, Kingsley Green, Haslemere.
*Allison, Mrs E. W., The Beverly, 125 East 50th Street, New York,
U.S.A.

*Alvarez, Dr Juan, 25 de Diciembre, 804, Rosario, Argentina.
*Anderson, Lady, Ballydavid, Woodstown, Waterford.

Anderson, Mrs Henry C., 20 Hermitage Drive, Edinburgh.

Andrews, Dr Marion B., Orsett, 14 Derry volgie Avenue, Belfast.
*Anrep, Mrs, 86 Charlotte Street, London, W. 1.

Anstey, Brigadier E. C., R.A., Ennore, Palmerston Road, Edinburgh 9.
*Arbuthnot, Miss Mary E., Davies’ Hotel, 10 Brompton Square,
London, S.W. 3.

*Ardron, G. H., c/o Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Co., 9 Gracechurch
Street, London, E.C. 3.

*Arnold, Miss Edith J., 27 Ardingly Drive, Goring- by-Sea, Sussex.
*Arnold-Forster, Mrs H. C., Orchards, Dover Park Drive, London,

S.W. 15.

*Assheton-Smith, Lady, 30 Queen Anne’s Gate, London, S.W. 1.
*Auden, Harold A., Dalemere, Lynn Lane, nr. Lichfield, Staffs.

Austen, H. W. C., M.D., Dormy Pool, Saxmundham Road, Aldeburgh.

306

Members and Associates

[part

Bacon, Mrs Sewell, Gate House, Northwood, Middlesex.

*Baker, Miss Mabel, 17 Ivydale Grove, London, S.W. 16.

*Balfour, Right Hon. the Earl of, P.C., LL.D., Fishers Hill, Woking.
*Balfour, Dr Margaret I., 14 Sylvan Road, London, S.E. 19.

*Balfour, The Lady Ruth, Balbirnie, Markinch, Fife.

*Ball, Mrs J. H., 11 Nevill Park, Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

*Barlow, Fred, Drakeford, Pool Head Lane, Wood End, Tanworth-in-
Arden.

Barrett, Lady, M.D., 31 Devonshire Place, London, W. 1.

*Barrow, J. R., c/o Grindlay & Co., 54 Parliament Street, London,

S.W. 1.

*Barrow, Mrs, 40 Weoley Park Road, Selly Oak, Birmingham.
*Batchelor, E., 4 Palace Mansions, London, W. 14.

*Bax, Clifford, G. 2, The Albany, London, W. 1.

*Beadon, Mrs, 11 Cheyne Walk, London, S.W. 3.

*Beattie, Ivor Hamilton.

*Beaty, Amos L., 80 Broadway, New York City, U.S.A.

*Bell, Mrs A. H., The Old Vicarage, Cuckfield, Sussex.

*Benedict, Professor H. Y., 3401 Guadalupe Street, Austin, Texas,
U.S.A.

*Bennett, Sir Ernest, M.P., 12 Prince Arthur Road, London, N.W. 3.
*Bentley, W. P., 4214 Swiss Avenue, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.
*Besterman, Theodore, Guyon House, 98 Heath Street, London, N.W. 3.
*Besterman, Mrs Theodore, 19 Endsleigh Street, London, W.C. 1.
Bidder, George P., Cavendish Corner, Hills Road, Cambridge.

*Birley, Mrs Oswald, Corner House, 62 Wellington Road, London,
N.W. 8.

Blathwayt, W., Eagle House, Batheaston, Bath.

*Blaine, Mrs Emmons, 101 East Erie Street, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
*Blennerhassett, Mrs Richard, 74 Elm Park Road, London, S.W. 3.
Bligh, Stanley M., 19 Clareville Grove, London, S.W. 7.

Bois, Henry G.

*Bolton, Edward J., Rossett Hall, nr. Wrexham.

Bond, Mrs W. C., Shalesbrook, Forest Row, Sussex.

Bosanquet, Miss Theodora, 1b Bay Tree Lodge, Frognal, London,
N.W. 3.

*Bousfield, W. R., K.C., F.R.S., St Swithins, Northwood, Middlesex.
Bouwens, B. G., Old Manor House, Littleton, Shepperton, Middlesex.
Bowen, Miss Anna C., Hotel Richmond, Batavia, N.Y., U.vS.A.

Boxer, Miss Cecile F., Firwood, Alum Chine, Bournemouth.

*Brandt, Rudolph E., 36 Fenchurch Street, London, E.C. 3.

Brewster, Bertram, 59 Madeley Road, London, W. 5.

Bristowe, The Hon. L. S.

*Broad, Professor C. D., Litt.D., Trinity College, Cambridge.

*Broch, Dr Leon, 76 Cuba Street, Habana, Cuba.

*Brooke, Anthony W., The Priory, Redbourn, Herts.

'’'Brookes, Mrs Norman, 206 Romain Road, Melbourne, Australia.

* Brown, B. II. Inness, 12o Broadway, New York City, U.S.A.

Brown, Charles, M.B., Tinto Bank, Kirkcaldy.

Members and Associates

307

151]

*Brown, Mrs J. Hally, Craignahullie, Skelmorlie, Ayrshire.

■*Brown, William, M.A., M.D., D.Sc., F.R.C.P., 88 Harley Street,
London, W. 1.

*Browne, 0. H., Fort House, Eastern Parade, Southsea, Hants.

*Bruce, Rev. W. J. Wallace, Meath Park, Coleraine, Co. Londonderry.
*Bruck, Dr Carl, Prenzlauer Allee 25, Berlin N.O. 55, Germany.
*Bulford, Staveley, 20 Eaton Terrace, London, S.W. 1.

Buller, Professor A. H. Reginald, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,
Canada.

*Bulley, Mrs Arthur, Ness, Neston, Wirral, Cheshire.

*Burrett, Mrs F. J., Moorland Cottage, Linkside, Hindhead, Surrey.
*Bury, Henry, The Gate House, Alumdale Road, Bournemouth.

Bury, Mrs Henry, The Gate House, Alumdale Road, Bournemouth.
Butler, Mrs Charles, 4 Prideaux Road, Eastbourne.

*Butt, Lady, c/o Midland Bank, Gloucester Road, London, S.W. 7.
*Butter, Colonel C. J. A., Cluniemore, Pitlochry, Perthshire.
*Butterfield, Mrs W. J. A., Ebor House, 71 Crystal Palace Park Road,
London, S.E. 26.

Cairns, Rev. David S., D.D., 62 Hamilton Place, Aberdeen.

*Caldwell, Dr Harmon White, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia,

U.S.A.

Campbell, Colin E., 35 Ebury Street, London, S.W. 1.

Campbell, Rev. Canon R. J., D.D., Heatherdene, Fairwarp, nr Uckfield,
Sussex.

*Campbell-Lang, Miss, Craig Lora, Connel, Argyllshire.

Candler, H. A. W., 43 Gondar Gardens, London, N.W. 6.

Candler, Miss M. I., 43 Gondar Gardens, London, N.W. 6.

*Cannon, Alexander, K.C.A., M.D., Ph.D., etc., L.C.C. Mental Hospital,
Bexley, Kent.

*Canziani, Miss Estella, 3 Palace Green, London, W. 8.

*Carden, W. A., M.R.C.S., Korea, Trappes Street, Worcester, C.P.,
S. Africa.

*Carington, W. Whately, Naarderstraat 274, Huizen, N.H., Holland.
*Carpenter, Mrs, Withleigh, West Heath Road, London, N.W. 3.
Carrington, Hereward, Ph.D., 247 Park Avenue, New York, U.S.A.
*Carruthers, Miss Helen, 10 King’s Bench Walk, London, E.C. 4.
*Carter, Mrs H. A., 190 Mount Vale, York.

Case, Miss A. J., 17 Bailbrook Road, Batheaston, nr Bath, Somerset.
*Cave, Charles J. P., Stoner Hill, Petersfield, Hants.

*Chambers, John, Mokopeka, Hastings, Hawkes Bay, New Zealand.
*Chant, Stephen, Spring Cottage, Sanderstead, Surrey.

*Cheatham, Rev. Thaddeus A., Pinehuxst, North Carolina, U.S.A.
*Chesters, Denis, 126 Widmore Road, Bromley, Kent.

Chitty, Hubert, F.R.C.S., 46 Pembroke Road, Clifton, Bristol.
*Churchill, Dr Stella, 8 Cumberland Terrace, London, N.W. 1.
Clapham, J. H., King’s College, Cambridge.

Clarkson, Mrs St John, 27 Ovington Street, London, S.W. 3.

Clay, Hon. Mrs, 11 Tite Street, London, S.W. 3.

*Clements, Mrs P. H., 26 St Andrews Road, Earlsdon, Coventry.

308 Members and Associates [part

Closson, Miss Olivia T., 206 Tlie Shawmut, 2200 Nineteenth Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

Clwyd, Lady, Bryngwenallt, Abergele, N. Wales.

*Cochrane-Baillie, Captain the Hon. Victor A., 20 Chester Terrace,
London, N.W. 1.

*Coggin, Rev. F. E., White Lodge, Meads, Eastbourne.

*Cole, The Lady Eleanor, Fishers Hill, Woking.

*Collins, George E., Bridge End Lane, Prestbury, nr. Macclesfield,
Cheshire.

*Collins, Seward, 235 E. 22nd Street, New York City, U.S.A.

*Collins, H. S., South Kensington Hotel, Qtieen’s Gate Terrace, London,

S.W. 7.

*Colquhoun, Miss B. M., 2 Kendall’s Mews, George Street, London,

W. 1.

*Cooke, P. A., 7 Foulser Road, London, S.W. 17.

Coombe-Tennant, A. H. S., 18 Cottesmore Gardens, London, W. 8.
Cooper, Rev. Canon F. W., Prestwich Rectory, Manchester.

Cornish, J. Easton, Cutley House, Moustapha Pasha, Alexandria,
Egypt.

*Corry, Miss Lucy, 13 Argyll Road, London, W. 8.

Cort van der Linden, P.W.J.H., Zuiderj^ark 2, Groningen, Holland.
*Craig, Mrs John Dickey, Bankers Trust Co., 501 Fifth Avenue, New
York City, U.S.A.

'•‘Crandou, L. R. G., M.D., 366 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, Mass.,
U.S.A.

*Critchley, Macdonald, M.D., F.R.C.P., 137 Harley Street, London,

W.l.

'^'Crocker, Lieut.-Colonel H. E., C.M.G., 7 Wrights Lane House, Ken-
sington High Street, London, W. 8.

*Crosfield, Miss M. C., Greensand, 78 Doods Road, Reigate, Surrey.
*Crunden, Mrs W. M., c/o Crunden & Martin Mfg. Co., St Louis, Mo.,
U.S.A.

*Crunden, Miss Edwina, c/o Crunden & Martin Mfg. Co., St Louis,
Mo., U.S.A.

*Cuddon, Eric, 6 Pump Court, Temple, London, E.C. 4.

*Cuthbert, H. D., Beaufront Castle, Hexham, Northumberland.

D’Arcy, Rev. G. J. A., The Vicarage, Worksop, Notts.

*Uart, Rev. J. L. Campbell, Presbytere St Georges, 7 rue Auguste
Vacquerie, Paris, XVI.

*Davidson, Miss A. M. Campbell, Achnamara, Connel, Argyll.

*Davies, Benjamin, 6 South Marine Terrace, Aberystwyth, Cardigan-
shire.

^Davies, Powys, c/o Thos. Cook & Son, Berkeley Street, London, W. 1.
*Davis, F. M., Etive, London Road South, Lowestoft, Suffolk.

Davys, Lieut.-Colonel G. L, O.B.E., I.M.S., c/o Grindlay & Co., 54
Parliament Street, London, S.W. 1.

Day, Miss Mabel K., 15 Elgin Court, London, W. 9.

*de Janasz, Robert, 40 Ennismore Gardens, London, S.W. 7.

De Jong, Dr K. H. E., Beeklaan, .356, The Hague, Holland.

309

151] Members and Associates

*De Koven, Mrs Reginald, 1025 Park Avenue, New York City,
U.S.A.

Deland, Mrs Lorin F., Kennebunkport, Maine, U.S.A.

*Dewar, Lady, Brookhill House, Cowfold, Sussex.

*Dewey, Rev. Sir Stanley D., Bart., Peak House, Sidmouth, Devon.

De Wyckoff, Joseph, Arlena Towers, Ramsey, N.J., U.S.A.

*Dhar, Bansi, Government Intermediate College, Fyzabad, U.P., India.
*Dick, Lieut. -Colonel Maxwell, M.B., B.S., LL.B., 13 Bedford Park
Mansions, The Orchard, Chiswick, London, W. 4.

Dickinson, Miss, Trebrea Lodge, Tintagel, Cornwall.

*Dickson, Mrs B. W. A., Little Bridgen, Bexley, Kent.

'^Dingwall, E. J., D.Sc., 14 Selwyn Gardens, Cambridge.

Dixon, Hugh N., 17 St Matthew’s Parade, Northampton.

*Dixon, Professor W. Macneile, LL.B., Litt.D., 2 South Park Terrace,
Hillhead, Glasgow.

*Dodds, Professor E. R., 62 High Street, Oxford.

Donne, Mrs, c/o Messrs Holt & Co., 3 Whitehall Place, London,

S.W. 1.

*Doulton, P. D., 37 De Vere Gardens, London, W. 8.

*Dowdall, Hon. Mrs, Melfort Cottage, Boar’s Hill, Oxford.

*Doxford, W. R. Dallas, 43 Swan Court, London, S.W. 3.

Drew, R. C., Morwenna, Topsham, Devon.

Dryer, T. E., King’s College, Cambridge.

^Duckworth, Mrs Arthur, 43 Catherine Street, London, S.W. 1.
*Due-Petersen, Jens, Aabylille, Aabyhof, Denmark.

*Duff, J. R. K., 100 Sunningfields, London, N.W. 4.

*Dundas, Mrs. R. W., 39 Hill Street, London, W. 1.

Dunne, D. P., 137 Victoria Street, London, S.W. 1.

*Dupre, Pierre V. C. W., The Firs, Spaniards Road, Hampstead Heath,
London, N.W. 3.

*Earl, Dr C. J. C., Caterham Mental Hospital, Caterham, Surrey.
*Edgeworth, F. H., M.D., 20 Combe Park, Bath.

*Elder, Frederick, 21 Essex Villas, Kensington, London, W. 8.

*Ehot, Hon. Lady, Port Eliot, St Germans, Cornwall.

Elliot, Mrs Gilbert, 60 Wynnstay Gardens, London, W. 8.

*Enger, G., 6 Rue Cherif Pacha, Alexandria, Egypt.

*Enthoven, Mrs F. V., 44 Carlton Hill, London, N.W. 8.

*Evans, Laurence A., Woodlands, Great Bookham.

*Evelyn, C. J. A., Wotton House, Dorking, Surrey.

*Ezra, Sir Alwyn, 143 Esplanade Road, Fort, Bombay, India-.

*Falk, Mrs, 7 Sion Hill, Chfton, Bristol 8.

*Farkas, Captain Gustav, Kongolo, Belgian Congo.

*Farrer, Mrs, 2 Somerset Road, London, S.W. 19.

Felkin, Mrs, 119 Grosvenor Road, London, S.W. 1.

*Fermor-Hesketh, Lord, Easton Neston, Towcester, Northamptonshire.
*Findlater, J. W., 16 Cutenhoe Road, Luton, Beds.

*Fischer, S., 305 Broadway, New York, U.S.A.

*Fisk, George W., The Spinney, Ditton Grange Close, Ditton Hill,
Surrey.

310

Members and Associates

[part

*Fitch, Hugh B.

^FitzGerald, Lieut-Colouel C. R. L., D.S.O., 5 Parkholme, Fairfield
Road, Eastbourne.

*Flagg, Don Perley, M.D., 3102 La Salle Avenue, Los Angeles, Cal.,

U.S.A.

*Fleetwood-Hesketh, Major C. H., Stocken Hall, Stretton, Oakham,
Rutlandshire.

*Fleming, Miss A. E., 3 Crossfield Road, London, N.W. 3.

^Fleming, Ian L., 22b Ebury Street, London, S.W. 1.

Flugel, Professor J. C., 11 Albert Road, London, N.W. 1.

*Fodor, N., Ph.D., 47 Beverley Court, Chiswick, London, W. 4.

*Foot, Miss Katharine, 31 Brookfield Mansions, London, N. 6.

Footner, Mrs, 122 Langford Court, Abbey Road, London, N.W. 8.
*Francis, Mrs Francis.

Freeman, Miss Adelaide C., Queen Anne’s Mansions, London, S.W. 1.
*Freeman, Rev. Canon, Bentley, Clifton Hill, Bristol.

*Frith, Mrs W.

*Fry, Miss Agnes, Orchard Hill, Brent Knoll, Highbridge, Som.
*Gantz, Mrs W. L., 35 Hasker Street, London, S.W. 3.

*Garton, Wilfred, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., 353 Romford Road, Forest Gate,
London, E. 7.

*Gatty, Oliver, 6 Lowndes Square, London, S.W. 1.

*Gavorse, J., 329^ West 21st Street, New York, U.S.A.

Gay, The Hon. Mrs C. H., Higham Hall, nr Rochester, Kent.

Gellert, J. W., 38-40 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, S. Australia.
*Gharagozlou, Mme. Naghi Khan, Khiaban Arbab Jamshid, Teheran,
Iran.

*Gibbes, Miss E. B., 25 Jubilee Place, London, S.W. 3.

^Gibson, Edmond P., 1009 Oaklawn Street, N.E., Grand Rapids,
Michigan, U.S.A.

*Giglio, E., 21 Mincing Lane, London, E.C. 3.

^Gilbert, A. Stuart, 7 Rue Jean du Bellay, Paris, IV.

Giles, Mrs, 19 Highfield Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham.

Gilson, R. Cary, Quilters, West Chiltington Common, by Pulborough,
Sussex.

*Glanville, Mrs E. A., Gatehurst, Gate End, Northwood, Middlesex.
Glasson, J. W., I.C.S., Biniaraitx, Sober de Mallorca, Baleares, Spain.
*Godden, Miss L. E., Heathfield, Lynchford Road, S. Farnborough,
Hants.

*Goldney, Mrs, 157 Rivermead Court, Hurhngham, London, S.W. 6.
^Goldschmidt, Mrs de. Lane End, Burchetts Green, Berks.

Gooch, Dr G. P., South Villa, Campden Hill Road, London, W. 8.
*Gore, Miss K. C., Peacock Hall, Little Cornard, Sudbury, Suffolk.
Gough, A. B., Ph.D., Briar Cliff, Sevenoaks, Kent.

*Gower, Sir Robert, K.C.V.O., O.B.E., Sandown Court, Tunbridge Wells.
*Grant, Malcolm, The Mall House, Castle Townshend, Skibbereen, Co.
Cork.

*Grant-Suttie, Colonel H. F., War Office, Whitehall, London, S.W. 1.
*Gray, Mrs E. F., Ripple Hall, Tewkesbury, Glos.

151]

Members and Associates

311

*Green, Lady, Gotwick Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex.

Green, Mrs Alan B., Acton Castle, Marazion, Cornwall.

*Greenwood, L. H. G., Emmanuel College, Cambridge.

*Gregory, C. C. L., F.R.A.S., 86 Friern Park, London, N. 12.

*Griffith, Mrs W. S. A., 19 Cbeyne Walk, London, S.W. 3.

Grignon, Miss A. E., 41 Filton Avenue, Horfield, Bristol.

*Grisman, Instructor-Commander J. R., R.N., Selhurst, Gordon Road,
Camberley, Surrey.

Grosvenor, Hon. Mrs Norman, 2 Upper Grosvenor Street, London, W. 1.
Grottendieck, W. G., rue v/d Noot 8, Brussels-Molenbeek, Belgium.
*Grubbe, Hubert H., 22 Park Lane, Soutbwold, Suffolk.

*Grugeon, C. L., The Chestnuts, Henley-on-Thames.

*Guenault, P. H., 31 Lyddon Terrace, Leeds.

*Gwyn, W. J., 8 Netherhall Gardens, London, N.W. 3.

Haidar, Professor Hiralal, P 49 Manicktolla Spur, Calcutta, India.
Hall, Wilfred, 9 Priors Terrace, Tynemouth, Northumberland.
^Hamilton and Brandon, The Duchess of, 25 St Edmund’s Terrace,
London, N.W. 8.

*Hamilton, Mrs T. Glen, 185 Kelvin Street, WinnijDeg, Canada.
Hammond, Miss Winifred B., 2034 S.E. 51st Street, Portland, Oregon,

U.S.A.

*Handley-Seymour, Major J. B., 1 Wadham Gardens, London, N.W. 3.
*Hannen, E. C., Ouseleys, Wargrave, Berks.

*Hanson, Mrs, The Pleasaunce, 4 Grassington Road, Eastbourne.
*Harding, Norman, 18 North Common Road, London, W. 5.

*Hare, Dr A. W., 59 York Road, Birkdale, Lancs.

*Harrington, E. J., Greensand, Heath Road, Petersfield, Hants.

Harris, Alan C., c/o Messrs. Morgan, Harjes & Co., 14 Place Vendome,
Paris, France.

Harris, Mrs W. F., 13 Westbourne Avenue, Hull.

^Harrison, V. G. W., Ph.D., Beverley Court, 23 Queen’s Gate,
London, S.W. 7.

Harrison, Wilham, Downs View, Tattenham Corner, Epsom.

Hart, Mrs H. H., The Old School House, Bodninick-by-Fowe, Cornwall.
*Hart, Hornell, Ph.D., 72 Sherman Street, Hartford, Conn., U.S.A.
*Haslam, Oliver H., Cairngill, nr Dalbeattie, Kirkcudbrightshire.
*Hawkins, J. Gordon, 480 Elhs Street, San Francisco, Cal., U.S.A.
*Hayes, Rev. J. W., Towerville, The Crescent, Loughton, Essex.
*Head, Mrs Geoffrey, 24 Charles Street, London, W. 1.

*Heard, Rev. A. St J., The Rectory, Caterham, Surrey.

*Heard, Gerald, 28 Portman Court, London, W. 1.

Heaton, Guy, 51 Westcliff Road, Bournemouth.

Hemenway, Mrs Augustus, Readville, Mass., U.S.A.

*Henderson, Miss Hester M., M.B., 25 Ferndale, Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
Henderson, J. J., c/o Mrs Ditges, Freehold, Greene County, New York,
U.S.A.

Henderson, Miss Lilian, North Lane Gables, The West Gate, Canter-
bury.

^Herbert, C. V. C., 3 King’s Mansions, Lawrence Street, London, S.W. 3.

312

Members arid Associates

[part

*Hercod, Ernest, 38 Avenue de Rumine, Lausanne, Switzerland.
*Hettinger, John, Broseley, 63 Drewstead Road, London, S.W. 16.
*Hichens, Mrs W. Lionel, North Aston Hall, Oxfordshire.

Hildyard, F. W.

*Hill, Miss Marianne, Claremont, Thornton, Bradford, Yorks.

Hoare, Fred H., 37 Fleet Street, London, E.C. 4.

*Holdsworth, H. H., Westholme, Sandal, Wakefield, Yorks.

*Hole, Rev. Donald, 35 Selby Road, Ealing, London, W. 5.

*Hollick, Captain A. J., Kelsall Lodge, Sunninghill, Ascot, Berks.
*HoUick, Mrs A. J., Kelsall Lodge, Sunninghill, Ascot, Berks.

Hollins, Mrs A. E., Dunsfold Rectory, Godaiming, Surrey.

*Holm, Knut H., c/o Anderson, Clayton & Co., Barranqueras (Chaer),
Argentine.

Hookham, Philip, Shottery Cottage, Shottery, Stratford-on-Avon.
*Hope, Lord Charles M., 26a North Audley Street, London, W. 1.
*Hoppe-Moser, Dr Fanny, Franz Josefstr. 19, Munich, Bavaria.
*Hoseason, A. G., The Bungalow, Tanworth-in- Arden, nr Birmingham.
Hotblack, Frank A., Great Frenches Park, Crawley Down, Sussex.
Howden, Mrs, 11 Eton Terrace, Edinburgh.

*Howe, E. Graham, M.B., B.S., 146 Harley Street, London, W. 1.
*Howell, Mrs Philip, 5 Carlyle Square, London, S.W. 3.
Howgrave-Graham, Major A., 116 Johnston Street, Pretoria, S. Africa.
*Hume, Lieut.-Colonel W. J. P., C.M.G., Brinksway, Lynchmere,
Sussex.

Hume-Rothery, J. H., Mendip House, Headington Hill, Oxford.
Hurwitz, W. A., Ph.D., White Hall 8, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.
Hutchinson, F. W. H., Grove Lawns, St Albans, Herts.

*Hutchinson, Mrs, Spelmonden, Goudhurst, Kent.

*Huxley, Professor Julian S., Zoological Society of London, Regent’s
Park, London, N.W. 8.

*Hydari, Rt Hon. Sir Akbar, P.C., Dilkusha, Hyderabad, Deccan, India.
*Hyland, C. W., Ph.C., 300 Commissioner Street, Johannesburg East,
Transvaal, S. Africa.

*Hynes, Miss G., 41 Haverstock HiU, London, N.W. 3.

Imamura, Prof. Shinkichi, Clinic for Psychiatry, Imperial University,
Kyoto, Japan.

*Innes, Lady Rose, Kolara, Gibson Road, Kenilworth, Cape, S. Africa.
*Irving, Rev. W. S., Oxenhall Vicarage, Newent, Glos.

*Istituto di Studi Psichici, Via Monforte No. 4, Milan, Italy.

*James, Mrs Bayard, 405 East 54th Street, New York, U.S.A.

*James, Colonel E. A. H., R.E., British Embassy, Tokyo, Japan.

James, Henry, 36 West 44th Street, New York City, U.S.A.

*James, Miss S. Boucher, 2 Whitehall Court, London, S.W. 1.

* Jameson, David.

*Janson, E. W., Balfour House, 119-125 Finsbury Pavement, London,

E.C. 2.

*Jay, Miss G. de L., Aynho, Station Road, Nailsea, Bristol.

Jaye, William R., Beldornie Tower, Pelham Field, Ryde, I.W.
’‘‘Jephson, Miss Ina, Lady oak, Fhmwell, Kent.

151]

Members and Associates

313

Johnson, Miss F. C., 25 York Street Chambers, London, W. 1.
^Johnson, Miss G. M., 32c Harrington Gardens, London, S.W. 7.
*Johnson, James MacNeill, Aberdeen, North Carolina, U.S.A.
*Johnston, Sir Reginald P., K.C.M.G., C.B.E., LL.D., Eilean Righ,
Loch Craignish, Kilmartin, Argyll.

* Johnston, Dr William B., Giverny, par Vernon, Eure, France.
*Johnston, Mrs W. B., Giverny, par Vernon, Eure, France.

*Jones, Professor B. Melvill, Engineering Laboratory, Cambridge.

* Jones, Sir Lawrence J., Bart, 39 Harrington Gardens, London, S.W. 7.

* Jones, Lady, 39 Harrington Gardens, S.W. 7.

*Jones, Lawrence E., 59 Pall Mall, Imndon, S.W. 1.

*Judah, Noble B.

*Jyotirbhusan, L. M., Rangpur, North Bengal, India.

*Kakucs, Baroness de, The Estate House, Heytesbury, Wilts.

Keeble, Lewis B., Highworth, Byng Road, Tunbridge Wells.
*Kennedy, Miss H. E., St Margaret’s, Wick Lane, Felpham.

*Ketner, Dr C. H., Den Helder, Holland.

*Khakhar, Dr H. M., Khakhar Buildings, C.P. Tank Road, Bombay,
India.

*Kingsley, Mrs, The Knoll, Silverhill Park, St Leonards-on-Sea.
*Kingston, Leonard J., 22 Spencer Park, London, S.W. 18.

*KiraIfy, G. A., M.B.E., 47 Lowndes Square, London, S.W. 1.

Knight, Charles N., 7 Marlborough Buildings, Bath.

Laing, R. M., “ Ogilvie,” 37 Macmillan Avenue, Christchurch, New
Zealand.

Lamb, Charles George, D.Sc., 65 Glisson Road, Cambridge.

*Lambert, G. W., 64 Onslow Gardens, London, S.W. 7.

*Lambert, Mrs Helen C., 12 East 88th Street, New York City,

U.S.A.

*Lambert, Rudolf, Haigst 42, Degerloch bei Stuttgart, Germany.

Leaf, Mrs A. H., Woodcroft, Oxted, Surrey.

Leaf, Miss E. M., Leafield, Augustus Road, London, S.W. 19.

*Leaf, F. A., West Acre, Harrow-on-the-Hill, Middlesex.

*Le-Apsley, James H. M., M.D., 1340 Highview, Kaimuki Honolulu,
Hawaii.

Lee, Blewett, P.O. Box 152, Station C., Georgia, U.S.A.

*Lee, Dr H. D. C., 32 New North Road, Huddersfield, Yorks.

*Lee, Roger L, M.D., 264 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass., U.S.A.

*Lees, Norman D., A.I.C., Norton Hall, Norton-on-Tees, Co. Durham.
*Leggett, Douglas M. A., Dytchleys, Coxtie Green, Brentwood, Essex.
*Lemon, Mrs, 8 Bryanston House, Dorset Street, London, W. 1.

Leon, Mrs Phihp, 4m Montagu Mansions, London, W. 1.

Leopold, Dr H. M., Oranjelaan 7, Hilversum, Holland.

*Leslie, Mrs J., Stragglethorpe Hall, Brant, Broughton, Norfolk.
*Lester, Mrs M. C., Keynes Place, Horsted Keynes, Sussex.

*Lewis, David J., 328 Fayette Street, Cumberland, Maryland, U.S.A.
Librarian, Public Library, Adelaide, S. Australia.

^Librarian, Adyar Library, Adyar, Madras, S. India.

Librarian, Arn.sterdam Free Library, Amsterdam, N.Y., U.S.A.

314 Members and Associates [part

*Librarian, Studiveereeniging voor “ Psychical Research,” Universi-
teits-Bibhotheek, Amsterdam, Holland.

Librarian, Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore, U.S.A.

*Librarian, Prussian State Library, Berhn, Germany.

Librarian, The City Public Libraries, Birmingham, 1.

*Librarian, The University, Birmingham.

Librarian, Jamsetjee Nesserwanjee Petit Institute, Bombay, India.
Librarian, Boston Athenaeum, Beacon Street, Boston, Mass., U.S.A.
Librarian, Public Library, Brighton.

*Librarian, The University, Bristol.

Librarian, Bowdoin College Library, Brunswick, Maine, U.S.A.
Librarian, Grosvenor Library, Buffalo, N.Y., U.S.A.

Librarian, Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.
*Librarian, Commonwealth Parliamentary Library, Canberra, F.C.T.,
Australia.

Librarian, Meadville Theological School, 5707 Woodlawn Avenue
Chicago, 111., U.S.A.

*Librarian, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A.
Librarian, Adelbert College of Western Reserve University, Cleveland,
Ohio, U.S.A.

^Librarian, Public Library, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.

Librarian, New Hampshire State Library, Concord, N.H., U.S.A.
Librarian, Selskabet for Psykisk Forskning, Ny Vestergade 7, Copen-
hagen, Denmark.

^Librarian, Iowa State Library, Des Moines, Iowa, U.S.A.

*Librarian, Glasgow Society for Psychical Research, 102 Bath Street,
Glasgow.

Librarian, The University, Glasgow.

Librarian, Pennsylvania State Library, Harrisburg, Pa., U.S.A.
^Librarian, Case Memorial Library of the Hartford Seminary Founda-
tion, Hartford, Conn., U.S.A.

*Librarian, Haverford College Library, Haverford, Pa., U.S.A.
Librarian, Leeds Library, Leeds.

*Librarian, The University, Leeds.

Librarian, Hon., Constitutional Club, London, W.C. 2.

Librarian, Dr Williams’s Library, Gordon Square, London, W.C. I.
Librarian, Guildhall Library, London, E.C. 2.

Librarian, Theosophical Society, 12 Gloucester Place, London, W. I.
*Librarian, Public Library, Los Angeles, Cal., U.S.A.

^Librarian, John Rylands Library, Manchester.

Librarian, Public Library, Melbourne, Austraha.

Librarian, The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn., U.S.A.
^Librarian, Bavarian State Library, Munich, Germany.

Librarian, Literary and Philosophical Society, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Libiarian, Public Library, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Librarian, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., U.S.A.

Librarian, Public Library, Jersey City, New Jersey, U.S.A.

Librarian, Public Library, New York, U.S.A.

^Librarian, Public Library, Omaha, Nebraska, U.S.A.

315

161] Members and Associates

Librarian, Norsk Selskap for Psykisk Forskning, Parkveien 49, Oslo,
Norway.

Librarian, Leland Stanford Junior University, Palo Alto, Cal., U.S.A.
Librarian, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A.
^Librarian, Public Library of Philadelphia, Middle City Station,
Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A.

Librarian, Natal Society, Pietermaritzburg, Natal, S. Africa.
*Librarian, The University, Eeykjavik, Iceland.

*Librarian, PubUc Libraries, Rochdale, Lancs.

Librarian, Colgate-Rochester Divinity School, Ambrose Swasey
Library, Rochester, N.Y., U.S.A.

Librarian, Mercantile Library Association, St Louis, Mo., U.S.A.
^Librarian, James Jerome Hill Reference Library, St Paul, Minn.,
U.S.A.

Librarian, Public Library, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.

Librarian, Public Library, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.

*Librarian, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pa., U.S.A.

Librarian, Pubhc Library of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
^Librarian, University of Ilhnois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.

Librarian, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

Librarian, Public Library, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

Librarian, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass., U.S.A.

*Littlewood, Professor J. E., Trinity College, Cambridge.

*LleweUin, Mrs W., Upton House, nr Poole, Dorset.

*Lloyd, Miss Ed)Yh M.

Lloyd, Miss Julia.

*Lloyd-Jones, Mrs, 104 Draycott Avenue, Kenton, Middlesex.

*Lodge, F. Brodie, Floore House, Floore, Northants.

*Lodge, Mrs F. Brodie, Floore House, Floore, Northants.

*Lodge, Sir Oliver, F.R.S., Normanton House, Lake, nr SaUsbury.
Lubbock, Mrs Geoffrey, Gleuconner, North Berwick.

Lyon, Mrs, 49 Holland Park, London, W. 11.

*Lyttelton, Hon. Mrs Alfred, G.B.E., 18 Great College Street, London,

S.W. 1.

*Maby, J. Cecil, Bourton-on-the-Hill, nr Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos.
Macdonald, Miss Isabelle M., M.B., 47 Seymour Street, London, W. 1.
*Mace, C. A., M.A., 12 Cavendish Road, London, N.W. 8.

*Machin, Mrs H. A. C., Kenora, Ontario, Canada.

Mackay, N. Douglas, M.D., Dall-Avon, Aberfeldy, Perth.

*Mackenzie, Mrs J. 0., 17 Great Cumberland Place, London, W. 1.
*Mackeson, Mrs Peyton, 1 Eldon Road, London, W. 8.

Macklin, Miss H. E., 23 Norland Square, London, W. 11.

Madders, Mrs H. F., 87 Hampstead Way, London, N.W. 4.

*Magnus, Mrs Laurie, 34 Cambridge Square, London, W. 2.

*Magrane, Mrs Victor, 4 Grand Parade, Portsmouth.

*Mahony-Jones, Mrs, M.B., 1 Culverden Gardens, Tunbridge Wells.
*Mallet, E. Hugo, 14 St. James’s Square, Bath.

*Malone, Dr Wilfred, 1 Alleyn Park, West Dulwich, London, S.E. 21.
*Mander, Geoffrey Le Mesurier, Wightwick Manor, Wolverhampton.

316 Members and Associates [part

*Manning, Miss H. T., 1009 Kenyon Avenue, Plainfield, New Jersey, U.S.A.
Mansell, A. E., Bundella, Dromedary, nr Hobart, Tasmania.

Mantel], Colonel A. M., 5 St James’s Square, Bath.

*Manuel, Alexander G., M.D., 110 William Street, New York, U.S.A.
*Marsden-Smedley, Mrs, Lea Green, Matlock, Derbyshire.

*Marshall, Miss G. F., Enfield Lodge, Pluckley, Kent.

Marston, Sir Charles, 4 Camden Park, Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

Marten, Miss A. R., Osbornes, Liphook, Hants.

*Marten, Yen. G. H., The Rectory, Godstone, Surrey.

*Mather, Rev. Herbert, Royal Automobile Club, Pall Mall, London,
S.W. 1.

*Matthews, Very Rev. W. R., Dean of St. Paul’s, London, E.C. 4.
*Maxwell, Sir John Stirhng, Bart., Pollok House, Pollokshaws.

Maxwell, Dr Joseph, 37 rue Thiac, Bordeaux, France.

Mayor, R. G., 36 Campden Hill Gardens, London, W. 8.

McConnel, H. W., M.B., M.R.C.S.

McConnel, Mrs H. W.

*McDougall, Miss C. J., Appleton-le-Moors, York.

McDougall, Wilham, F.R.S., D.Sc., M.B., Wellwick House, Wendover,
Bucks.

*MacIntyre, Donald, Moanalua, Honolulu, Hawaii.

McKeever, Buell, The Chicago Club, Michigan Ave. and Van Buren
Street, Chicago, 111., U.S.A.

McLauchlan, G. M., c/o Dr J. J. Dunne, Port Alfred, C.P., S. Africa.
Meek, Maximilian de, 93 Kenilworth Avenue, Wimbledon, London,
S.W. 19.

Meebold, Alfred, Heidenheim, Wurtemberg, Germany.

Mehrji, M. H., M.D., Yusuf Building, Esplanade Road, Fort, Bombay,
India.

*Mellor, Miss J. V., 26d Ladbroke Gardens, London, W. 11.

*Merritt, 0. K., Mt. Airy, North CaroUna, U.S.A.

*Micklethwait, Richard K.

*Millard, Mrs Almira B., 269 Canyon Crest Road, Altadena, Calif., U.S.A.
*Miller, G. B., Brentry, Romsey, Hants.

*Minns, Christopher, Hammondswood Cottage, Frensham, Surrey.
*Minns, Mrs C., Hammondswood Cottage, Frensham, Surrey.

*Mitchell, T. W., M.D., Hope Meadow, Hadlow, Kent.

*Morris, Miss H. L., 6 Fore Hill, Ely, Cambs.

*Mortimer, Mrs Stanley, 4 East 75th Street, New York City, U.S.A.
*Morton, Dr Eva, 24 Park Crescent, Portland Place, London, W. 1.
*Mosher, Mrs Howard T., 216 Alexander Street, Rochester, N.Y., U.S.A.
*Moss, C. A., 277 Hamlet Court Road, Westchff-on-Sea, Essex.
*Mounsey-Wood, Mrs, 16 Alexandra Road, Reading, Berks.

*Moxey, Louis W., 230 N. Camac Street, Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A.
*Muir, Mrs W. E., Rowallan, Haslemere, Surrey.

*Mulhns, Colonel W. B., Ambersham House, Midhurst, Sussex.
*Mumford, Captain W. C., Sugwas Court, Hereford.

*Miirer, Johan, Furnlundsvei 7, Bestum, Oslo.

*Murphy, Professor Gardner, Ph.D., Columbia University, N.Y., U.S.A.

317

151] Members and Associates

Murray, Professor Gilbert, LL.D., Litt.D., Yatscombe, Boars Hill,
Oxford.

*Myers, Harold H., O\’ington House, Ovington Square, London, S.W. 3.
*Myers, L. H., 19 St. James’s Square, London, S.W. 1.

*brarain, Harsingh, Hardoi, U.P., India.

*Nasb, iliss Diana, Point of Pines, Tryon, N. Carolina, U.S.A.
*Naumburg, IMiss Margaret, c/o Messrs Straus & Kenyon, 475 Fifth
Avenue, New York City, U.S.A.

Neustadter, Louis W., 6845 Odin Street, HoUyvood, Cal., U.S.A.
Newton, Miss F. E.

Newton, Miss I., 31 Tavistock Square, London, W.C. 1.
*Newton-Davis, Mrs, M.B., 8 Temple Gardens, London, N.W. 11.
*Nicholl, Iltyd B., The Bath Club, 34 Dover Street, London, W. 1.
^Nicholson, Mrs Scoble, Gatehurst, Northwood, Middlesex.

*Nicol, J. Fraser, 2 Observatory Road, Edinburgh, 9.

*NicoU, j\Irs De Lancey.

*Nisbet, B. C., 42 Iverna Court, London, W. 8.

*North, Sidney V., Poste Restante, South wick, Sussex.

*OdeU, A. E., 10 Knights Park, Kingston-on-Thames, Surrey.

*01dfield. Miss F., The Glen, Farnborough Park, Kent.

*Ohver, C. R., 61 Court-field Gardens, London, S.W. 5.

*Osborn, A. W., Ehzabeth Street P.O., Melbourne, Australia.

*Osborne, Miss H., 10 Empire House, London, S.W. 7.

*Osmaston, Dudley F., Lowfold, Wisborough Green, Sussex,

*Owen, A. S., Keble College, Oxford.

*Paget, Captain A. W. L., 19 Bryanston Square, London, W. 1.

*Paget, Mrs A. W. L., 19 Bryanston Square, London, W. 1.

*Palmer, John W. G., 13 New Road, Brighton, Sussex.

*Palmstierna, H.E. Baron, 27 Portland Place, London, W. 1.

*Parkin, John, Blaithwaite, Carhsle.

Parsons, N. M., 65 Bedford Gardens, London, W. 8.

*Parsons, Mss P. C., The Drift, Cave End, Reading, Berks.

Paul, J. Rodman, 505 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A.
*Payne, Mrs, M.B., C.B.E., 143 Harley Street, London, W. 1.

*Peake, C. W.

Pease, Mrs J. R., 82 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

^Pennington, Mrs Henry, 279 Trinity Road, London, S.W. 12.

Percival, Philip E., Old Priory, Brightwell, nr Walhngford, Berks.
Perkins, Mss S. R., 74 Princes Square, London, W. 2.

Perry, Sir E. Cooper, M.D., Seighford, JMQI Road, West Worthing,
Sussex.

*Philhmore, Hon. Ms, Kendals HaU, Radlett, Herts.

*PhiUimore, Mss M., 16 Queensberry Place, London, S.W. 7.

Phillips, Mrs C. G., Kazamgula, P.O. Sinska Bridge, George, C.P.,
S. Africa.

*Pickard, Mrs Fortescue, c/o Guaranty Trust Co. of N.A"., 50 Pall Mall,
London, S.W. 1.

*Piddington, J. G., Fishers Hill, Woking, Surrey.

*Piercy, Major B. H., 94 Piccadilly, London, W. 1.

318

Members and Associates

[part

*Pierson, Miss Jocelyn, Sterlington, New York, U.S.A.

Pigou, Professor Arthur Cecil, King’s College, Cambridge.

*Pilcher, Mrs G. T., Treen, Frith Hill, Godaiming, Surrey.

*Pillai, R. B., c/o Thos. Cook & Son, Berkeley Street, London, W. 1.
Piper, John E., LL.B., 10 Herondale Avenue, London, S.W. 18.
Pithapuram, H.H. The Maharajah of, Pithapuram, Madras Presidency,
India.

*Plimmer, Mrs R. H. A., 52 The Pryors, East Heath Road, London,
N.W. 3.

*Pocock, Miss F. N., 34 Gerard Road, Barnes, London, S.W. 13.
*Pollock, A. N., M.B., Ch.B., 4 Ventnor Villas, Hove 3, Sussex.
*Power, F. Danvers, 25 Woodside Avenue, Burwood, N.S.W., Australia.
Powles, Lewis Charles, Little Chfi, Rye, Sussex.

*Preston, E. M., Slaugham Park, Haywards Heath, Sussex.

*Price, Harry, Arun Bank, Pulborough, Sussex.

*Price, H. H., Trinity College, Oxford.

Pym, LesUe R., Penpergwm Lodge, Abergavenny, Wales.

*Quinby, Rev. John W., East Bridgewater, Mass., U.S.A.

*Rabb, A. L., 1350 Consohdated Building, Indianapolis, Ind., U.S.A.
*Radcliffe- Whitehead, Ralph.

*Radclyffe-Hall, Miss M., The Black Boy, Rye, Sussex.

*Raikes, C. S. M., Northlands, 124 College Road, London, S.E. 19.

Ramsden, Miss, Marley House, Haslemere, Surrey.

*Rashleigh, John C. S., M.D., Throwleigh, Okehampton, Devon.
*Rattey, C. C., Downside, Merrow, Guildford.

*Rayleigh, Lord, Terhng Place, Chelmsford, Essex.

*Rees-Roberts, J. V., F.R.S., M.D., 90 Fitzjohn’s Avenue, London,
N.W. 3.

*Reeves, E. A., F.R.A.S., 56 Hillway, Highgate, London, N. 6.
*Reeves, Mrs M. S., 31 Pembroke Square, London, W. 8.

Rendall, Rev. Dr G. H., Dedham House, Dedham, Essex.

*Rendell, Francis G., 19 The Drive, Henleaze, Bristol.

*Renwick, A. E., St-y-Nyll, St Brides-super-Ely, Glamorgan.
*Reutiner, Miss A. H., Fountain Court, Westminster, London, S.W. 1.
*Rhine, J. B., Ph.D., Duke University, Durham, N. Carohna, U.S.A.
*Richmond, Mrs Kenneth, 82 North End Road, Loudon, N.W. 11.
*Rickman, John, M.D., 11 Kent Terrace, London, N.W. 1.

*Riddle, Mrs, Hillstead, Farmington, Conn., U.S.A.

*Ridley, Henry N., F.R.S., C.M.G., 7 Cumberland Road, Kew, Surrey.
*Rinehart, Mrs Stanley M., 630 Park Avenue, New York City, U.S.A.
*Ripon, Rt Rev. The Bishoir of. The Palace, Ripon.

*Ritchie, A. J., Oriental Club, Hanover Square, London, W. 1.

*Ritson, F. A., 10 Rubislaw Den South, Aberdeen.

Riviere, Mrs Evelyn, 4 Stanhope Terrace, London, W. 2.

*Robson, Major J. S., Hales Place, Tenterden, Kent.

*Rogers, George F., M.D.

*Romanes, F. J., The Brick House, Duton Hill, Dunmow, Essex.

*Ross, Robert, British Consulate General, 360 N. Michigan Avenue,
Chicago, 111., U.S.A.

151]

Members and Associates

319

^Rothschild, Miss Miriam L., 4 Palace Green, London, W. 8.

*R6thy, C., 1 Znhatag-Gasse 5, Budapest, Hungary.

*Rowntree, W. S., 15 Chatsworth Road, Brighton, Sussex.

*Russell, Dr A. V., 4 Oaks Crescent, Wolverhampton.

*Ryan, Mrs.

*Ryley, Mrs Beresford, 37 Victoria Road, London, W. 8.

*St. Aubyn, Hon. Mrs., 61 Onslow Gardens, London, S.W. 7.

*Salter, F. R., Magdalene College, Cambridge.

*Salter, W. H., The Crown House, Newport, Essex.

*Salter, Mrs W. H., The Crown House, Newport, Essex.

*Saltmarsh, H. F., Woodcote, Lynton, N. Devon.

*Saltmarsh, Mrs H. F. Woodcote, Lynton, N. Devon.

Samaldas, Hon. Sir Lalubhai, 99 Apollo Street, Fort, Bombay, India.
*Sassoon, Mrs Alfred, Weirleigh, Matfield Green, Kent.

*Sassoon, Mrs Meyer, 6 Hamilton Place, London, W. 1.

Savin, Mrs, M.D., 7 Devonshire Place, London, W. 1.

*Scotland, Douglas C., L.R.C.P., Church Lane, Brighouse, Yorks.
Scott, Miss A. D., 60 Hornsey Lane, London, N. 6.

Scott, Rev. D. I)., C.F., The Manse, Khandallah, Wellington, New
Zealand.

Scott, Captain J. E., c/o Barclays Bank, 140 King’s Road, London,

S.W. 3.

*Selborne, The Earl of, K.G., Blackmoor, Liss, Hants.

Shastri, B. G., Kala Mehta’s Street, Sagrampura, Surat, India.

*Shaw, Mrs Bernard, 4 Whitehall Court, London, S.W. 1.

*Shearer, F. Myers, c/o I. J. Butcher, Kither’s Buildings, King William
Street, Adelaide, S. Australia.

*Siepmann, Mrs, 4 Wells Road, Regent’s Park, London, N.W. 8.
Simpson, Miss E. C. Price, Beech Barns, Alton, Hants.

*Sinclair, Miss May.

Singh, Amar, Hoshiarpur, Punjab, India.

*Sitwell, Mrs, 114 Grosvenor Road, London, S.W. 1.

Smith, G. Albert, Rosedene, 7 Melville Road, Hove, Sussex.

*Smith, Harrison Bowne, Jr., c/o The George Washington Life Insurance
Co., Charleston, W. Va., U.S.A.

*Smith, Marion, 80-llth Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.

*Smith, The Lady Sybil, Mitford House, Lennox Gardens, London,

S.W. 1.

Smith, Rev. Wilham J.

*Soal, S. G., Scratton Lodge, Brook Road, Prittlewell, Essex.

Soley, Mrs, 66 Holbein House, Sloane Square, London, S.W. 1.
*Sorabji, K. S., 175 Clarence Gate Gardens, London, N.W. 1.

Southern, H., 3 Crescent Road, Beckenham, Kent.

*Sowrey, Wing-Commander J., R.A.F., Yeoveney, Staines, Middlesex.
*Spender, J. A., Well Hill House, Chelsfield, Farnborough, Kent.
Spens, William, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.

*Spinney, G. H., 4 OverhiU Gardens, London, S.E. 22.

*Spranger, John A., 4 Via Micheli, Florence, Italy.

*Sprott, W. J. H., 116 Portland Road, Nottingham.

320 Members and Associates [part

*Standaart, Dr A. W. J., 382 Mathenesserlaan, Rotterdam, W., Holland
*Stanslield, C. E., 70 Nortlicourt Avenue, Reading, Berks.

*Steane, G. A., 5 Queen Victoria Road, Coventry.

Stephens, W. E., Malie, Seychelles, Indian Ocean.

^Sterling, Miss F. M., Home Wood, Hartfield, Sussex.

*Stevens, Rev. W. H., Eastville, Haslingden, Lancs.

Stevenson, Mrs A. F., 72 Heath Street West, Toronto, Canada.
Stevenson, A. Creery, Rose Cottage, Farnborough, Hants.

Stewart, Miss M.A., Queen Anne’s Mansions, London, S.W. 1.

Stoehr, Miss, Alexandra Club, Cape Town, S. Africa.

*Strachey, Mrs J. St Loe, 39 St Leonard’s Terrace, London, S.W. 3.
*Strange, T. A., Christowe, Minchinhampton, Glos.

*Stratton, Professor F. J. M., Gonville and Gains College, Cambridge.
*Strawson, A. H., 27 Norfolk Road, London, N.W. 8.

*Strutt, Rear-Admiral the Hon. A. C., R.N., 1 Cambridge Square,
London, W. 2.

*Strutt, Hon. Mrs A. C., 1 Cambridge Square, London, W. 2.

*Strutt, Hon. Charles R., Terhng Place, Chelmsford, Essex.

*Strutt, Hon. John A., 18 Hyde Park Square, London, W. 2.

'^Sturt, H. H., c/o Asiatic Petroleum Co., Singapore, Straits Settle-
ments.

Swainson, Miss F. J.

Swinburne, Mrs, 22 Queen’s Gate Gardens, London, S.W. 7.

*Taylor, Captain H. B., R.N., 36 Morpeth Mansions, London, S.W. 1.
^Telling, W. H. Maxwell, M.D., 29 Park Square, Leeds.

*Tennant, Mrs B. V., Hams Plot, Beaminster, Dorset.

*Thaw, A. Blair, 3255 N. Street, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

*Thibodeau, Wilham A., 20 Chapel Street, Brookline, Mass., U.S.A.
*Thomas, Rev. C. D., South Hill Lodge, Bromley, Kent.

Thomas, Miss Edith J., Nantyfelin, Criccieth, N. Wales.

*Thomas, Mrs Gale, 3 Morland Close, Hampstead Way, London,
N.W. 11.

*Thomas, John F., Ph.D., 18295 Oak Drive, Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A.
^Thompson, Mrs E. Roland, Oak Hayes, Crewkerne, Somerset.
*Thompson, Dr R. B., Fellside, Brixham, S. Devon.

^Thomson, Lady, Bell Cottage, Kynance Mews, London, S.W. 7.
*Thorburn, John M., University College, Cathays Park, Cardiff.
Thornley, Miss F. J., The Pantiles, Brean Don Avenue, Weston-super-
Mare.

Thornton, Mrs, 5 Belgrave Place, Edinburgh.

*Thurn and Taxis, H.I.H. The Prince Alexander of, Loucen, Nimburg,
Czecho-Slovakia.

Thurston, Rev. Herbert, S.J., 114 Mount Street, London, W. 1.
Tinnevelly, Rt. Rev. The Lord Bishop of, Bishopstowe, Palamcottah,
S. India.

Tipping, Miss K., 7 Lansdowne Circus, Leamington.

Tottenham, Miss Mary T. A., Ballycurry, Ashford, Co. Wicklow, I.F.S.
*Traprain, The Viscountess, Whittingehame House, Whittingehame,
Haddington.

151]

31 embers and Associates

321

*Trethewy, A. W., Artillery Mansions, London, S.W. 1.

*Troubridge, Una, Lady, Tire Black Boy, Rye, Sussex.

*Tuckey, Mrs C. Lloyd, 60 Courtfield Gardens, London, S.W. 5.

Tuson, K. H., Lieut R.E., School of Electric Lighting, Gosport.
*Tyrrell, G. N. M., 32c Harrington Gardens, London, S.W. 7.

*Unwin, Mrs, The Firkin, Redhill, Surrey.

*Vandy, G. E., 94 Essex Road, London, E. 12.

*Van Deren, H. S., Hume Fogg Building, Nashville, Tenn., U.S.A.

Van Renterghem, A. W., M.D., 298 Heemraad-Singel, Rotterdam,
Holland.

*Var\’ill, Bernard, M.R.C.S., 92 Harley Street, London, W. 1.

*Vatcher, Mrs, 38 Stafford Court, London, W. 8.

*Vaughan, E. L., 8 Arhngton Road, Eastbourne.

*Verner, L. H., 10 Clara Street, Stoke, Coventry.

*Vincent, Miss G. H. M. M., Carisbrooke Road, Leicester.

Vyvyan, Mrs T. C., Poldhu, Richmond, Natal, South Africa.
*Wagstaff, Mrs, 19 Princess Court, London, W. 1.

* Wales, Hubert, Homewood Heath, Hindhead, Surrey.

Walker, Miss May C., c/o National Provincial Bank, Piccadilly,
London, W. 1.

*Walker, Miss Nea, Clemcroft, Soudley, Church Stretton.

Wanderley, F. M., Corumba, Matto Grosso, Brazil.

Wang, C. Y., 9 Yangtze Road, S.D.A., Hankow, China.

*Warburton, Mrs J. R., Arley, Rydens Road, Walton-on-Thames, Surrey.
Ward, Hon. Kathleen, Moorings, Menai Bridge, Anglesey.

*Warner, Hon. Mrs W. W., 52 Hans Place, London, S.W. 1.

Warrender, Miss Margaret, 50 Wilton Crescent, London, S.W. 1.
^Warrick, F. W., 6 Raymond Buildings, London, W.C. 1.

*Watkins, Miss K. E., 53 All Souls’ Avenue, London, N.W. 10.

*Watts, Mrs James, Branton, Bolhn Hill, Wilmslow, Manchester.
*Weldon, Arthur, 23 Westminster Palace Gardens, London, S.W. 1.
*Wellesley, Sir Victor A. A. H., C.B., 12 Ranelagh Grove, London, S.W. 1.
*Wendt, Mrs Henry, 126 Chapin Parkway, Buffalo, N.Y., U.S.A.
*West, M., Cornerways, Baughurst, nr Basingstoke, Hants.

Whitaker, Mrs Joseph J. S., Villa Malfitano, Palermo, Sicily.

* Whitehead, IVRss Mercia D.

Wigan, W. L., Clare Cottage, East Malhng, Maidstone, Kent.

Wilkins, Mrs, 13 Buckleigh Road, Streatham, London, S.W. 16.
Wilkins, C. F., Three Trees, Hilhngdon, Middx.

*Wilkins, Rev. H. J., D.D., Redland Green, Bristol, Glos.

*Wilkinson, Mrs C., 9 Pine Close, Pinelancls, C.P., S. Africa.

*Willock, Mrs C. J., Lampool, nr Uckfield, Sussex.

*Wilson, Mrs C. Stuart, Mena House, The Pyramids, Cairo, Egypt.
Wilson, Percy.

*Wilson, S. R. W., Two Fields, Whelpley Hill, Chesham, Bucks.

* Wilson- Wright, L. A., Meer Hill, Loxley, Warwick.

*Winby, Lieut.-Col. L. P., 11 Trevor Square, London, S.W. 7.
*Winclulsea and Nottingham, Edith Countess of. Dower House,

Ewerby, Sleaford, Lines.

Members and Associates

322

[part 161]

*Winterstein, Dr Baron Alfred von, Wattmanngasse 38, Vienna xiii,
Austria.

*Wisdom, John, 16 Clarendon Hoad, Oxford.

*Wodehouse, Miss Helen M., Girton College, Cambridge.

*Wood, Christopher, 28 Portman Court, London, W. 1.

*Wood, Mrs St Osyth, 105 Hallam Street, Loudon, W. 1.

*Wood, T. Eugene, Redcliffe, 14 Chine Crescent Road, Bournemouth.
Woodhull, Miss Zula M., Norton Park, Bredon’s Norton, nr Tewkes-
bury, Glos.

Woods, Miss Alice, St Ives, Radlett, Herts.

Woods, Miss C. E., Graythorpe, Kingswood, Surrey.

Woollett, Lieut. -Colonel W. C., Grand Hotel, Gibraltar.

*Woolley, Mrs Cornell, 950 Park Avenue, New York, U.S.A.

*Worsfold, Mrs Basil, 3 Plowden Buildings, Temple, London, E.C. 4.
*Worcester, Dr Elwood, 186 Marlborough Street, Boston, Mass., U.S.A.
Wrangham, W. H., 78 Barmouth Road, London, S.W. 18.

* Wright, Dr A. F.

*Wright, H. R., 15b St Mildred’s Road, Lee, London, S.E. 12.

*Wright, Maurice B., M.D., 86 Brook Street, London, W. 1.

*Yardley, R. B., 3 Paper Buildings, Temple, London, E.C. 4.
Younghusband, Sir Francis, Currant Hill, Westerham, Kent.

*Zeigler, Major C. H., Springfield, Breinton, Hereford.

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

Society for Psychical Research

INDEX TO VOL. 44.

For the sake of brevity such qualifications as “ supposed,”
“ alleged,” etc., are omitted from this index. It mu.st, however, be
miderstood that tins omission is made solely for brevity, and does
not imply any assertion that the subject-matter of any entry is in
fact real or genuine.

Apparitions, 68.

Atman, 187.

Attention, 181-182.

Automatic wTiting, 76-77.

Balfour, Miss E. M., afterwards Mrs
Henry Sidgwick. See Sidgwick,
Mrs E. M.

Bennett, E. N., “ In Memory of
Everard FeUding ”, 5-6.

Besterman, T., “ Mrs Henry Sidg-
wick’s Work in Psychical Re-
search,” 96-97.

Blavatsky, Mine H. P., 59-60.

Book-Tests, evidence of intention in,
35-52 ; Mrs Sidgwick’s “ An Ex-
amination of Book-Tests obtained
in sittings with Mrs Leonard ”, 86-
88.

Brighton Experiments in Thought
Transference, 63-6-1, 70-71.

Broad, C. D., pomts raised in his Pre-
sidential Address, 169-170, 176-177.

Cards, use of “ Zener ” Cards in ex-
periments in extra-sensory percep-
tion, 114-119.

Carington, W., “ The Quantitative
Study of Trance Personalities ”
Pt 3, 189-222 ; review of his work

on trance personalities by R. H.
Thouless, 225-275 ; “ Note on Pro-
fessor Thouless’ Paper ”, 276-277.

Causality, 285, 290-291, 294.

Chance, measurement of the incidence
of, in experiments in extra-sen-
sory perception, 129-135.

Clairvoyance, Mrs E. M. Sidgwick’s
paper on, referred to, 64 ; observa-
tions on, by J. C. Maby, 170-177.
See also Perception, Extra-Sensory.

Cliches, m mediumistic communica-
tions, 25-27.

Committee on Theosophical Pheno-
mena 1884-1885, 59-60.

Communicator-Impulse, 20, 21, 29,
33, 34.

Communicator-Personahty, 17, 23 ;
autonomy of, 225.

Compton, Dr, communicator in Leo-
nard sittings, 24, 29-30.

Consciousness, compared with a
physiological process, 181.

Control, “ Direct control ” of medium,
18.

Controls, countersimilarity of, to
mediums, 255-263.

Correlation, measurement of, 231.

Countersiniilarity, 234 ; of controls
to mediums, 255-263.

324

Index to Vol. XLIV

[part

Cross- correspondences, 46, 76-77, 82-
83.

Cryptopsychy, 177.

Davey, J. G., 55-56.

Difference, measure of, by analysis of
variance, 234-245.

Dramatisation, of medium, 29.

Electrical apparatus, used in experi-
ments in extra-sensory perception,
119-133, 135-137.

Engrams, R. Semon’s theory of, 300-
301.

“ Etta ”, communicator in Leonard
sittings, 262, 264-272.

Extra-Sensory Perception. See Per-
ception, Extra-Sensory.

“ Feda ”, consistency of personality
of, 192-201 ; countersimilarity to
Mjs Leonard, 194, 255-261.

Feilding, E., Memoir of, 5-6.

Fisk, G. W., 115-116 ; his system of
scoring in experiments in extra-
sensory perception, 153-162.

Garrett, Mrs, counter similarity of,
with “ Uvani ”, 261.

Gurney, E., Phantasms of the Living,
referred to, 58.

Hall, Miss Radclyffe, her sittings with
Mrs Leonard, 42-51.

Hallucinations, 58 ; S.P.R. census of,
1889-1894, 67-68, 72-73.

Hansen, F. C. C., his criticisms of the
Brighton Experiments in Thought
Transference, 70-71.

Hauntings, 296-297.

Heard, G., his review of T'hrotigh a
Stranger's Hands by Nea Walker,
13-15.

Hodgson, R., 55, 59, 77.

Hyperajsthesia, 127-128.

Hypnosis, thought transference in, 63.

Identity, intuitional impressions of,
29-30.

Individuality, 7-12, 183-188 ; mea-
surement of, 250-255.

Intention, in the trance-mind, 28 ; in
communicators, 20, 21, 29, 33, 34.

“ John ”, communicator in Leonard
sittmgs, 23, 24, 31, 262, 264-272.

Johnson, A., “ Mrs Henry Sidgwick’s
Work m Psychical Research ”, 53-
93.

Johnson, G. M., experiments in extra-
sensory perception with, 99-167.

Language, influence of, on telepathic
transmission, 169-170.

Lehmann, A., his criticisms of the
Brighton Experiments in Thought
Transference, 70-71.

Leonard, Mrs 0., “ Preliminary

Studies of the Recorded Leonard
Material ”, by K. Richmond, 17-52
signiflcance of whispered remarks
of, 29 ; consistency of trance per-
sonality of, 192-201 ; counter-
similarity to “ Feda ”, 255-263.

Lodge, Sir 0. J., “ In Memory of
Charles Richet ”, 1-4.

Maby, J. C., “ Some Observations on
Extra-Sensory Perception ”, 169-
182.

Mace, C. A., “ Supernormal Faculty
and the Structure of the Mind ”,
279-302.

Maxwell, J., “ Les Correspondances
croisees et la methode experimen-
tale ”, Mrs Sidg\vick’s reply to, 82-
83.

Memory, connection of, with mdi-
viduality, 11-12.

Mind-Body relationship, 291-295.

Morselli, E., Psicologia e spiritisnw,
Mrs Sidgwick’s review of, 77-78.

Murray, G., his experiments in
thought transference, 91-92.

Myers, F. W. H., Phantasms of the
Living, referred to, 58.

N-Rays, 80.

Paladino, E., 68-70.

Parish, E., Zur Kritik des telepatis-
chen Beweismateriels, Mrs Sidg-
wick’s reply to, 72-73.

Perception, Extra-Sensory, “ Further
Research in Extra-Sensory percep-
tion ”, by G. N. M. Tyrrell, 99-167 ;
“ Some Observations on Extra-
sensory Perception ”, by J. C.
Maby, 169-182 ; subjective aspect
of, 101-102 ; use of pomter appara-

151]

Index to Vol. XLIV

326

tus in, 107-114 ; use of Zener cards
in, 114-119 ; use of electrical
apparatus in, 119-133, 135-137 ;
element of chance in, 129-135 ;
Fisk method of scoring in, 153-
162; visual, 172-174; auditory,
174-175 ; tactile, 175-176 ; undif-
ferentiated, 176-177 ; relation be-
tween object and form of presenta-
tion in, 171-177. See also Clair-
voyance and Telepathy.

Perception, Sensory, process of, 287-
295.

Personality, intuitional impressions
of, 29-30 ; meaning of, 225 ; self-
consistency of, 250-255 ; dual or
multiple, 9-10, 186-187 ; secon-
dary, 17-18 ; communicator-, 17,
23 ; control-, 23, 255-263 ; trance-,
189-222, 223-275.

“ Phantasms of the Dead ”, by Mi’s
E. M. Sidgwick, referred to, 58-59.

Phantasms of the Livhig, referred to,
58 ; Mrs Sidgwick’s abridgment of,
86.

Photography, Spirit-, Mrs E. M. Sidg-
wick’s paper on, 64-65.

Pinocchio, Avventure di. Book-test
with, 39-40.

Piper, Mrs, 73-75, 83-85.

“ Pipes ” episode, of the Drayton
Thomas proxy sittings, 27, 34.

Podmore, F., Phantasms of the Living,
referred to, 58 ; obituary of, by
Mrs Sidgwick, 81.

Pointer apparatus, used in tests for
extra-sensory perception, 107-114,
137-141.

Precognition, 297 ; experiments in
extra-sensory perception, 149-150.

Premonitions, Mrs E. M. Sidgwick’s
paper on, 61.

“ Psychic Ether ” theory, 297-298.

Rayleigh, Lord, 53.

Reaction time, in word-association
tests, 12, 226.

Reproduction test, as used in word-
association tests, 226.

Richet, C., memoir of, by Sir 0.
Lodge, 1-4.

Richmond, K., “ PreUminary Studies
of the Recorded Leonard Material ”,

17-52.

Salter, Mrs, 38-41.

Salter, W. H., “ Mrs Henry Sidg-
wick’s Work in Psychical Re-
search ”, 94-96.

Saltmarsh, H. F., “ Some Comments
on Mr Tyrrell’s Paper on Indi-
viduality ”, 183-188.

Semon, R., his theory of engrams,
300-301.

Sharplm, Mrs, consistency of the
trance -personality of, 192-201.

Sidgwick, Mrs E. M., “ Mrs Henr}'
Sidgwick’s Work in Psychical Re-
search ” by A. Johnson, 53-93 ;
supplementary memoir of, by W. H.
Salter, 94-96 ; by T. Besterman,
96-97 ; portrait of, facing p. 53 ;
birth and early life, 53 ; becomes
Principal of Newnham College, 65-
67 ; becomes Hon. Secretary of the
S.P.R., 78 ; President, 1908-1909,
78-79 ; “ Contribution to the Study
of the Psychology of Mrs Piper’s
Trance Phenomena ”, 83-85.

Sidgwick, H., 54 ; attitude to fraudu-
lent mediums, 56-57 ; attitude as a
philosopher to psycliical research,
61-62 ; death, 75-76.

“ Silver ”, control of Mrs Sharplin,
consistency of, 192-201.

Similarity, measurement of, 230-234.

Smith, G. A., hypnotic experiments
of, 63.

Society for Psychical Research, foun-
dation of, 57.

Spirit-hypothesis, 22, 34, 184.

Spirit-photography, Mrs E. M. Sidg-
mck’s Paper on, 64-65.

Subliminal Mind, 177-182.

“ Supernormal Faculty and the Struc-
ture of the Mind ”, by C. A. Mace,
279-302.

Survival, 7, 14.

Tanner, A., Shulies in Spiritism, Mrs
E. M. Sidgwick’s review of, 81-82.

Telepathy, 13-14, 89-91, 280-296;
experimental, 19, 63-64, 70-71, 91-
92 ; process of, 169-172 ; super-
normal element in, 286-287.

Theosophical Phenomena, Report of
Committee on, 1884-1885, 59.

Thomas, J. Drayton, 31.

Thomas, C. Drayton, 31-33.

326

Index to Vol. XLIV [pabt 151]

Thought Transference. See Tele-
pathy, experimental.

Thouless, R. H., “ Review of Mr
Whately Carington’s Work on
Trance Personalities ”, 223-275 ;
Note on, by W. Carington, 276-277.

Through a Stranger's Hands, by Nea
Walker, reviewed, 13-15.

Trance-mind, dual technique of, 17 ;
organised trends of, 25-27 ; ele-
ment of intention in, 28.

Trance Personalities, “ The Quantita-
tive Study of Trance Personalities ”
Pt 3, by W. Carington, 189-222 ;
reviewed by R. H. Thouless, 223-
275.

Transcendental Self, 187.

Tyrrell, G. N. M., “ Individuality ”,
7-12 ; comments on, by H. F. Salt-
marsh, 183-188 ; “ Further Re-

search in Extra-Sensory Percep-
tion ”, 99-167.

Unconscious Mind, Collective, Jung’s
theory of, 300.

Unconscious Thought, possibility of,
177-182.

“ Uvani ”, countersimilarity with
Mrs Garrett, 261.

Variance, analysis of, W. Carington’s
use of, 231 ; explained, 236-244.
Verrall, Dr, as communicator in
Leonard sittings, 48-52.

Vita nuova, la, Book-test with, 41-52.

Walker, N., Through a Stranger's
Hands, reviewed, 13-15.
Word-association Test, 12, 226.

“ Zener ” Cards, used in tests of extra-
sensory perception, 114-119.

9/1

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO. LTD.
THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, GLASGOW

PISL.14 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Y ^

2BM-8-4I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

134 STATE LIBRARY

HARRISBURG

In case of failure to return the books the borrower agrees to pay the original price
of the same, or to replace them with other copies. The last borrower is held respon-
sible for any mutilation.

Return this book on or before the last date stamped below.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research."

See other formats